Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move

[Sinatra]

Hillary Clinton appears to be distancing herself from the Holder decision as well.

Obama flies off prior to the announcement, and the Secretary of State gives a tepid reply to one of the most substantive international decisions to come out of this White House to date...

____

An oddly distanced phrase came from Secretary Clinton when I asked her about AG Holder’s Friday decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – the confessed mastermind of the 911 plot –and his accomplices in Federal Court in Manhattan.

"I won’t second guess the Attorney General,” Clinton told me. “My goal is to make sure that the mastermind and the other implementers and designers of the horrific attack pay the ultimate penalty for what they did to the United States and a lot of people who I know and had the honor of representing.”


Hillary 'Won't Second Guess' Holder - George's Bottom Line

 

[Ravi]

The only distancing I see is in the editorial spin.

 

[Vast LWC]

The motivation for the attacks were quite similar - but the details of the actual arrests were not.

Go back and study up - you clearly don't understand the legal logistics of what is currently and unwisely being attempted - to say nothing of the more far-reaching terrorism implications...

I'm sorry, "legal logistics"?

I work for a law firm, so perhaps you could explain to me what you mean by that.

 

[Liability]

The only distancing I see is in the editorial spin.

Are you actually claiming that you DON'T see how her odd choice of words reflects the fact that she IS distancing herself from this stupid-ass decision?

Come on.

She had the option, naturally, of saying NOTHING whatsoever. Instead she said THAT mess, that cluster-fuck of a "comment?"

And you see no distancing except in the editorialization?

Ravi, your credibility blows at the best of times. You just murdered it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Agreed - Rudy clearly layed out the folly of what Holder and the White House are attempting with these civilian trials of terrorist criminals.

It is quite possible the detractors of Giuliani in this thread did not actually view his comments - just as they don't understand the actual legal implications of what the Obama administration is attempting to undertake - and which they had no actual NEED to attempt.

Like what "Legal Implications"?

And please don't spare on the details.

 

[Sinatra]

The only distancing I see is in the editorial spin.

Are you actually claiming that you DON'T see how her odd choice of words reflects the fact that she IS distancing herself from this stupid-ass decision?

Come on.

She had the option, naturally, of saying NOTHING whatsoever. Instead she said THAT mess, that cluster-fuck of a "comment?"

And you see no distancing except in the editorialization?

Ravi, your credibility blows at the best of times. You just murdered it.

And George S., a former Clintonite, would know better than most just how distancing Hillary's comments were regarding the Holder decision.

Anyone saying she was more than lukewarm at best regarding this decision is simply choosing not to see reality...

 

[Sinatra]

Agreed - Rudy clearly layed out the folly of what Holder and the White House are attempting with these civilian trials of terrorist criminals.

It is quite possible the detractors of Giuliani in this thread did not actually view his comments - just as they don't understand the actual legal implications of what the Obama administration is attempting to undertake - and which they had no actual NEED to attempt.

Like what "Legal Implications"?

And please don't spare on the details.

I suggest you actually view the link at the start of this thread.

Rudy has a fair amount of actual legal knowledge, yes?

You should not speak to things you clearly know so little of...

 

[Vast LWC]

Clearly, once again, you people are trying to use the concept of some vague terrorist threat to make political points.

Or some vague references to some sort of "Legal Implications".

The only implications of having the case in a criminal court is that we consider these people to be "Criminals", which means the "War on Terror" would be effectively over, and that scares the hell out of you people.

After all, without the fearmongering of the "War on Terror" your party won't have a political leg to stand on.

 

[Sinatra]

Clearly, once again, you people are trying to use the concept of some vague terrorist threat to make political points.

Or some vague references to some sort of "Legal Implications".

The only implications of having the case in a criminal court is that we consider these people to be "Criminals", which means the "War on Terror" would be effectively over, and that scares the hell out of you people.

After all, without the fearmongering of the "War on Terror" your party won't have a political leg to stand on.

Overly simplistic and utterly naive...

 

[Sinatra]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aBn73x8kjM]YouTube - Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (2 of 2)[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

Yes, we should have pulled out troops out of Saudi Arabia after 1993, like Bush did after 9/11.

 

[Sinatra]

Deflection.


View the video.

Giuliani is right on with his concerns...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aBn73x8kjM]YouTube - Rudy Giuliani on KSM's trial in NYC (2 of 2)[/ame]

 

[Liability]

Clearly, once again, you people are trying to use the concept of some vague terrorist threat to make political points.

Or some vague references to some sort of "Legal Implications".

The only implications of having the case in a criminal court is that we consider these people to be "Criminals", which means the "War on Terror" would be effectively over, and that scares the hell out of you people.

After all, without the fearmongering of the "War on Terror" your party won't have a political leg to stand on.

No. The only thing clear is that you, like so many leftards, are once again trying to deny reality (an actually dangerous reality) to suit your petty present political agenda.

If I see flames licking out from under the door in a crowded theater, it is not fear mongering to warn the other movie-goers that the place is on fire and that they need to get out.

Fear might be part of the motivation, but it is a PERFECTLY valid and legitimate one.

Terrorists are not mere bogeymen under a kid's bed, you simp.

They really do exist, they really are stil engaged in plotting to kill many of us in as many horrible ways as their putrid imaginations wil allow, and they are still moving in directions that will allow them to do so.

 

[bodecea]

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?

The fact you are asking that very question betrays your own alarming ignorance.
/

No. The fact he is asking that very question betrays that he wants an answer. Your lack of an answer betrays your inability to give one. We're not fooled.

Please study up on the facts surrounding the apprehension of these two cases - and how they will directly impact the probabilty for success this time around.

A very-very naive move by this White House...

Have studied them...no reason not to have a trial in NYC....since you cannot provide us with one except some right wing talking point platitudes that really say nothing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact you are asking that very question betrays your own alarming ignorance.

Please study up on the facts surrounding the apprehension of these two cases - and how they will directly impact the probabilty for success this time around.

A very-very naive move by this White House...

It's OK....you don't know and everyone knows it. The BIGGER question is, if you think Rudy is such a swell guy and has all the answers, why didn't he admit that he made a mistake backing the civilian trials for the 1993 bombing?

No - the bigger question is the setting up of a civilian trial for these 9-11 animals.

The 1993 case is not a valid comparable - legally speaking.

You best find out why as your ignorance is glaring...

Not comparable?

You mean like Ramzi Yousef, planner of 1993, arrested in Pakistan and later tried in NYC,

would NOT be comparable to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planner of 9/11, being arrested in Pakistan and later tried in NYC?

Gee, right, when you look at them in that light, OBVIOUSLY there's NO comparison!!!

Gawd, are you a parody of someone?

 

[bodecea]

Agreed - Rudy clearly layed out the folly of what Holder and the White House are attempting with these civilian trials of terrorist criminals.

It is quite possible the detractors of Giuliani in this thread did not actually view his comments - just as they don't understand the actual legal implications of what the Obama administration is attempting to undertake - and which they had no actual NEED to attempt.

Like what "Legal Implications"?

And please don't spare on the details.

I suggest you actually view the link at the start of this thread.

Rudy has a fair amount of actual legal knowledge, yes?

You should not speak to things you clearly know so little of...

You are still dodging answering. It's not gone unnoticed.

 

[bodecea]

Clearly, once again, you people are trying to use the concept of some vague terrorist threat to make political points.

Or some vague references to some sort of "Legal Implications".

The only implications of having the case in a criminal court is that we consider these people to be "Criminals", which means the "War on Terror" would be effectively over, and that scares the hell out of you people.

After all, without the fearmongering of the "War on Terror" your party won't have a political leg to stand on.

They've still got Abortion and Gay Marriage.

 

[Liability]

Clearly, once again, you people are trying to use the concept of some vague terrorist threat to make political points.

Or some vague references to some sort of "Legal Implications".

The only implications of having the case in a criminal court is that we consider these people to be "Criminals", which means the "War on Terror" would be effectively over, and that scares the hell out of you people.

After all, without the fearmongering of the "War on Terror" your party won't have a political leg to stand on.

They've still got Abortion and Gay Marriage.

Wrong again.

The LEFT is the side that "has" abortion. And many on the right are simply not all that worked up about Gay Marriage.

The post you are commending, itself, of course, was stupid.

 

[jillian]

I'm still waiting for a single rightie to explain to me why we had no problem trying McVeigh and the blind sheikh, but suddenly, the U.S. Court system is incapable of trying a mass murderer.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

 

[Ravi]

The only distancing I see is in the editorial spin.

Are you actually claiming that you DON'T see how her odd choice of words reflects the fact that she IS distancing herself from this stupid-ass decision?

Come on.

She had the option, naturally, of saying NOTHING whatsoever. Instead she said THAT mess, that cluster-fuck of a "comment?"

And you see no distancing except in the editorialization?

Ravi, your credibility blows at the best of times. You just murdered it.

Right, saying no comment...now that would have been distancing.

You guys are pathetic.