Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move

[VaYank5150]

Yes - the White House has made a terrible error in judgement here.

Just heard a report that Holder stated on one of the weekend news programs that he simply called Obama to inform him of his decision - meaning Obama was "out of the loop". Holder stated he had only consulted his wife and brother regarding the decision. WTF?????

In the political world this is a clear message of trying to construct deniability for Obama if/when this fiasco blows up in their faces - OR - we have a president who is in fact out of the loop and is a mere figurehead while various operatives are actually running the show. To have a president not be the primary policy decision maker on something as important as these 9-11 trials, would be astounding - and disturbing...

So, getting back to YOUR boy Rudy.....why was is OK to try the 1993 bombers in civilian court, but not now?

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

What does "pre-9-11 vs post-9-11" mean? And what does it have to do with our Judicial system?

 

[Sinatra]

So, getting back to YOUR boy Rudy.....why was is OK to try the 1993 bombers in civilian court, but not now?

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

What does "pre-9-11 vs post-9-11" mean? And what does it have to do with our Judicial system?

Indeed...

 

[Ravi]

Rudy is a coward.

 

[Sinatra]

The lib talking points in this thread are so pat, yet Obama has really stepped in it with having this in a civilian court. He has already alienated many in the IC, and this may likely give him a unanimous alienation of a large group on which he heavily depends.

And, it seems Obama knows he has stepped in it as he is already trying to toss Holder under the bus on this one.

Yes - the White House has made a terrible error in judgement here.

Just heard a report that Holder stated on one of the weekend news programs that he simply called Obama to inform him of his decision - meaning Obama was "out of the loop". Holder stated he had only consulted his wife and brother regarding the decision. WTF?????

In the political world this is a clear message of trying to construct deniability for Obama if/when this fiasco blows up in their faces - OR - we have a president who is in fact out of the loop and is a mere figurehead while various operatives are actually running the show. To have a president not be the primary policy decision maker on something as important as these 9-11 trials, would be astounding - and disturbing...[/QUOTE]
____


So anyone care to explain how an Attorney General can state he consulted with his wife and brother regarding these 9-11 trials but not the President of the United States?

 

[VaYank5150]

So, getting back to YOUR boy Rudy.....why was is OK to try the 1993 bombers in civilian court, but not now?

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

What does "pre-9-11 vs post-9-11" mean? And what does it have to do with our Judicial system?

Hello?

 

[Ravi]

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

What does "pre-9-11 vs post-9-11" mean? And what does it have to do with our Judicial system?

Hello?

There was an excellent op/ed in my paper this morning about this.

That's what happened with the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, ``shoe bomber'' Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui, and scores of other terrorism suspects tried in open court. Some 347 convicted terrorists are being held in American prisons after facing justice in U.S. courts, by the count of Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

There is every reason to believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts will eventually join them. The obligation to stand trial in an open court of law is a defeat for the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who once expressed a desire to plead guilty in the military commission system established in Guantánamo.

Because the trial venue has been discredited around the Islamic world -- and among U.S. allies -- fulfilling his wish would have solidified his status as martyr on behalf of a distorted version of Islam.

Wisely, the plea was disallowed. Mohammed and the others will have to face a judge and jury, hear the evidence against them, and be given the opportunity to offer a defense -- all the features of a legal system that they reject precisely because it is emblematic of the rule of law and a civilization they despise.

Trying the accused conspirators in New York obliges them to return to the scene of the crime, a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence. It gives the trial a transparency it never could achieve in Guantánamo and offers families who lost loved ones the chance to see justice done.

Victory for due process, rule of law - Editorials - MiamiHerald.com

How funny that the rightwingnuts want to give KSM what he wants and piss on our constitutional system.

 

[Sinatra]

The lib talking points in this thread are so pat, yet Obama has really stepped in it with having this in a civilian court. He has already alienated many in the IC, and this may likely give him a unanimous alienation of a large group on which he heavily depends.

And, it seems Obama knows he has stepped in it as he is already trying to toss Holder under the bus on this one.

Yes - the White House has made a terrible error in judgement here.

Just heard a report that Holder stated on one of the weekend news programs that he simply called Obama to inform him of his decision - meaning Obama was "out of the loop". Holder stated he had only consulted his wife and brother regarding the decision. WTF?????

In the political world this is a clear message of trying to construct deniability for Obama if/when this fiasco blows up in their faces - OR - we have a president who is in fact out of the loop and is a mere figurehead while various operatives are actually running the show. To have a president not be the primary policy decision maker on something as important as these 9-11 trials, would be astounding - and disturbing...[/QUOTE]
____


So anyone care to explain how an Attorney General can state he consulted with his wife and brother regarding these 9-11 trials but not the President of the United States?

...

 

[Ravi]

Oh, and kids? Information gotten through torture is inadmissible as evidence so you can stop worrying that Dubya might end up looking bad. I have no doubt in my mind that you'd excuse any crime of KSM's if it let Dubya off the hook.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes - the White House has made a terrible error in judgement here.

Just heard a report that Holder stated on one of the weekend news programs that he simply called Obama to inform him of his decision - meaning Obama was "out of the loop". Holder stated he had only consulted his wife and brother regarding the decision. WTF?????

In the political world this is a clear message of trying to construct deniability for Obama if/when this fiasco blows up in their faces - OR - we have a president who is in fact out of the loop and is a mere figurehead while various operatives are actually running the show. To have a president not be the primary policy decision maker on something as important as these 9-11 trials, would be astounding - and disturbing...

So, getting back to YOUR boy Rudy.....why was is OK to try the 1993 bombers in civilian court, but not now?

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

The world didn't change on 9/11...America DID...

Now the "conservatives" tell us Hirohito sneak attacks and torturing human beings are traditional American values...what NEXT?

There is no such thing as Islamofascism. This is a coined propaganda word used to inflame the ignorant. There is no factual basis for the hatred that neoconservative Islamophobes instill in Americans. God did not tell America to destroy the Muslims for the Israelis.
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics

 

[chanel]

Islamaphobic neo cons - real word Islamofascisim - made up? Ok Got it,

 

[bodecea]

So, getting back to YOUR boy Rudy.....why was is OK to try the 1993 bombers in civilian court, but not now?

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

What does "pre-9-11 vs post-9-11" mean? And what does it have to do with our Judicial system?

To people like Sinatra "post 9-11" means "We are willing to give up our rights for some pretend safety because we are very, very terrorized"

 

[Bfgrn]

Islamaphobic neo cons - real word Islamofascisim - made up? Ok Got it,

Neo cons is a term for neoconservatives ...REAL people

Phobia
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, phóbos, fear or morbid fear), is an intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared subject. When the fear is beyond one's control, and if the fear is interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety disorders can be made.

 

[geauxtohell]

Hey!

Did you guys know that Rudy was mayor of NYC during 9-11?

I had no idea..........

He such a modest man, that he never brings it up.

 

[Ravi]

Hey!

Did you guys know that Rudy was mayor of NYC during 9-11?

I had no idea..........

He such a modest man, that he never brings it up.

Rudy is a coward. I can't believe he's suggesting that New York cower in fear to please AQ.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Hey!

Did you guys know that Rudy was mayor of NYC during 9-11?

I had no idea..........

He such a modest man, that he never brings it up.

this rudy guy sounds like he is presidential material.

he should run on his achievements. it would be a big success.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes - the White House has made a terrible error in judgement here.

Just heard a report that Holder stated on one of the weekend news programs that he simply called Obama to inform him of his decision - meaning Obama was "out of the loop". Holder stated he had only consulted his wife and brother regarding the decision. WTF?????

In the political world this is a clear message of trying to construct deniability for Obama if/when this fiasco blows up in their faces - OR - we have a president who is in fact out of the loop and is a mere figurehead while various operatives are actually running the show. To have a president not be the primary policy decision maker on something as important as these 9-11 trials, would be astounding - and disturbing...

So, getting back to YOUR boy Rudy.....why was is OK to try the 1993 bombers in civilian court, but not now?

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

Oh so post an attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 is a whole different world than the post an attack on the World Trade Center 1993 world?

LOL, who's writing your gags, Sinatra? Funny stuff.

 

[Sinatra]

So, getting back to YOUR boy Rudy.....why was is OK to try the 1993 bombers in civilian court, but not now?

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

Oh so post an attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 is a whole different world than the post an attack on the World Trade Center 1993 world?

LOL, who's writing your gags, Sinatra? Funny stuff.

The government response should have been different post - 1993.

Given the resulting and far more significant damage of 9-11, even more so...

 

[VaYank5150]

Simple - pre-9-11 vs post-9-11.

And you can dislike Rudy all you want - his statement was completely correct on this matter.

HUGE error by the White House...

Oh so post an attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 is a whole different world than the post an attack on the World Trade Center 1993 world?

LOL, who's writing your gags, Sinatra? Funny stuff.

The government response should have been different post - 1993.

Given the resulting and far more significant damage of 9-11, even more so...

So, Rudy was wrong to back trials in civilian court for the terrorists of the 1993 bombings?

 

[Sinatra]

Oh so post an attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 is a whole different world than the post an attack on the World Trade Center 1993 world?

LOL, who's writing your gags, Sinatra? Funny stuff.

The government response should have been different post - 1993.

Given the resulting and far more significant damage of 9-11, even more so...

So, Rudy was wrong to back trials in civilian court for the terrorists of the 1993 bombings?

I believe so, even though the circumstances surrounding the arrests and detaining of those 1993 animals was far more conducive to a civilian trial.

Not so with this current crop of 9-11 terrorists.

You would do well to educate yourself on the subject more - and do so post-haste.

This thing is gonna be a fiasco for Obama - and unfortunately, potentially dangerous for America...

 

[VaYank5150]

The government response should have been different post - 1993.

Given the resulting and far more significant damage of 9-11, even more so...

So, Rudy was wrong to back trials in civilian court for the terrorists of the 1993 bombings?

I believe so, even though the circumstances surrounding the arrests and detaining of those 1993 animals was far more conducive to a civilian trial.

Not so with this current crop of 9-11 terrorists.

You would do well to educate yourself on the subject more - and do so post-haste.

This thing is gonna be a fiasco for Obama - and unfortunately, potentially dangerous for America...

What's the difference? They are criminals, murderers, nothing more. Nothing less. They planned these crimes againats Americans on American soil. What's the difference, again?