Giuliani: No 'Successful Radical Islamic' US Terror Attacks Before Obama

[Skylar]

According to Rudi "the Pride of New York" Giuliani there were no attacks carried out in the US by Islamic terrorists until President Obama was elected. Off the top of my head, I came up with two (2); 1993 world Trade Center bombing and the calamitous Twin towers attack on 9/11/2001 when that IDIOT Giuliani was Mayor of New York! He even ran for president waving his credentials of leadership reminding everyone of his mayoral prowess by repeating 9/11 several hundred times daily!

Here is what he claimed while on the stump for trump:

"“Before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States,” Giuliani said at an event for Donald Trump in Ohio."
Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Such are the type of people Trump and his campaign obtain to endorse their "efforts".

Um, wow.

 

[Skylar]

It is obvious you cannot show Guiliani the liar saying 9/11 so all you have are personal insults.
Thank you!

Yes, Giuliani was assuming you weren't an idiot and realized 9/11 was 7 1/2 years before Obama, not 8. He stands corrected

But Guiliani the liar does not say 8 years either, he says "UNDER BUSH!"

Right, 9/11 hijackers were in the US training and preparing under Clinton and attacked shortly after with Clinton's airline security procedures. W hadn't had a chance to do anything about it yet. If you don't agree with that it's one thing. To claim that duh, dar, drool, you don't even know what he meant is just stupid

Bullshit!

US air traffic authority had multiple Bin Laden hijack warnings before 9/11
By Patrick Martin
11 February 2005
According to former officials of the 9/11 commission who spoke with the Times, the Bush administration finally approved both the classified report on the FAA’s performance before September 11 and a declassified 120-page version two weeks ago, delivering them to the National Archives. The declassified version is heavily “redacted,” with significant passages entirely deleted. Nonetheless, the Times reported, “the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.”

The declassified report says that the FAA officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and that “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” according to the Times.

Altogether, FAA officials received 52 intelligence reports from their own security branch that named bin Laden or Al Qaeda, during the five months before September 11. Either the terrorist leader or his network was mentioned in half of all the intelligence summaries circulated through the agency leadership. Five of these reports discussed Al Qaeda’s ability to conduct hijackings, while two mentioned suicide operations.

It has been previously reported that the FAA issued general warnings to the airline industry in the spring and summer of 2001 about the possibility of hijackings by Islamic terrorists. One such warning, cited in the 9/11 commission document, cautions US airport administrators that while the FAA still regarded an overseas hijacking as the greater likelihood, if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.” This quote refutes once again the statements by Bush administration representatives like Condoleezza Rice, who notoriously declared, in 2002, that no one could have imagined “that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”

According to the 9/11 commission document, the FAA “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.” In 2001 the FAA distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said, and the FAA conducted briefings during the summer for security officials from 19 of the busiest US airports, specifically warning of the threat posed by bin Laden and his organization. This did not stop the hijackers from successfully boarding airplanes at Boston, Newark and Dulles Airports only months later.

A number of issues are raised by the Times report on the 9/11 commission document. It vindicates the testimony of Mary Schiavo, former inspector general of the Department of Transportation, who has been a public critic of the FAA and an ally of the September 11 families, who sought to force an independent investigation of the role of the federal government before and during the attacks.

Schiavo said in her statement to the commission, “The notion that these hijackings and terrorism were an unforeseen and unforeseeable risk is an airline and FAA public-relations management myth.” She was opposed by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta—the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet—who told the commission, “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile.”

The document also confirms the testimony of former Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who charged that the administration had been grossly negligent about security preparations in relation to US air traffic in the period leading up to September 11. On July 5, 2001, Clarke, Rice, and Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, convened a meeting of domestic agency heads to discuss urgent counterterrorism preparations.

An e-mail message the following day from Clarke to Rice noted that the meeting had agreed on developing “detailed response plans in the event of three to five simultaneous attacks.” Yet neither FAA Administrator Jane Garvey nor Transportation Secretary Mineta were informed of the decisions of this meeting or tasked to carry them out.

The Bush administration initially opposed the formation of the 9/11 commission, only accepting it when the families began a public campaign against the refusal to hold an investigation more than a year after the bloodiest single event on US soil since the Civil War. Even after the formation of the commission, headed by trusted figures in the political establishment, the FAA in particular refused to cooperate. The agency had to be subpoenaed by the commission and directed by the White House to comply before it would deliver records on the responses of air traffic controllers and the radar record of the movement of air defense fighters on September 11.

The latest revelation about the circumstances leading up to the 9/11 attack also suggests the following obvious question, although the Times does not ask it: If the FAA had 52 warnings, how many did the CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have?

Yes, the CIA, FBI and every other agency was in W's office screaming we're all going to die to W and he ignored them all! Idiot

In W's defense, there was no actionable intel at his disposal that would have prevented 911. Even the 'smoking gun' August 6th memo was just a vague list of possibilities, with no particular method or target prioritized over any other.

 

[Faun]

the truth is there is no context that makes guiliani's statement true.

Context proves the op and the ABC headline a lie, of course you're good with their lies, aren't you?

they could have been more precise

but then saying "they all started when clinton and obama got into office" supports the headline

Except he didn't say that did he?

The hell he didn't...

"Remember, we didn't start this war. They did. We don't want this war. They do. Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

It's the last line he utters in the video found in the link in the OP. Why not address it rather than pretend you don't see it?

 

[kaz]

Yes, Giuliani was assuming you weren't an idiot and realized 9/11 was 7 1/2 years before Obama, not 8. He stands corrected

But Guiliani the liar does not say 8 years either, he says "UNDER BUSH!"

Right, 9/11 hijackers were in the US training and preparing under Clinton and attacked shortly after with Clinton's airline security procedures. W hadn't had a chance to do anything about it yet. If you don't agree with that it's one thing. To claim that duh, dar, drool, you don't even know what he meant is just stupid

Bullshit!

US air traffic authority had multiple Bin Laden hijack warnings before 9/11
By Patrick Martin
11 February 2005
According to former officials of the 9/11 commission who spoke with the Times, the Bush administration finally approved both the classified report on the FAA’s performance before September 11 and a declassified 120-page version two weeks ago, delivering them to the National Archives. The declassified version is heavily “redacted,” with significant passages entirely deleted. Nonetheless, the Times reported, “the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.”

The declassified report says that the FAA officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and that “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” according to the Times.

Altogether, FAA officials received 52 intelligence reports from their own security branch that named bin Laden or Al Qaeda, during the five months before September 11. Either the terrorist leader or his network was mentioned in half of all the intelligence summaries circulated through the agency leadership. Five of these reports discussed Al Qaeda’s ability to conduct hijackings, while two mentioned suicide operations.

It has been previously reported that the FAA issued general warnings to the airline industry in the spring and summer of 2001 about the possibility of hijackings by Islamic terrorists. One such warning, cited in the 9/11 commission document, cautions US airport administrators that while the FAA still regarded an overseas hijacking as the greater likelihood, if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.” This quote refutes once again the statements by Bush administration representatives like Condoleezza Rice, who notoriously declared, in 2002, that no one could have imagined “that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”

According to the 9/11 commission document, the FAA “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.” In 2001 the FAA distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said, and the FAA conducted briefings during the summer for security officials from 19 of the busiest US airports, specifically warning of the threat posed by bin Laden and his organization. This did not stop the hijackers from successfully boarding airplanes at Boston, Newark and Dulles Airports only months later.

A number of issues are raised by the Times report on the 9/11 commission document. It vindicates the testimony of Mary Schiavo, former inspector general of the Department of Transportation, who has been a public critic of the FAA and an ally of the September 11 families, who sought to force an independent investigation of the role of the federal government before and during the attacks.

Schiavo said in her statement to the commission, “The notion that these hijackings and terrorism were an unforeseen and unforeseeable risk is an airline and FAA public-relations management myth.” She was opposed by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta—the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet—who told the commission, “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile.”

The document also confirms the testimony of former Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who charged that the administration had been grossly negligent about security preparations in relation to US air traffic in the period leading up to September 11. On July 5, 2001, Clarke, Rice, and Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, convened a meeting of domestic agency heads to discuss urgent counterterrorism preparations.

An e-mail message the following day from Clarke to Rice noted that the meeting had agreed on developing “detailed response plans in the event of three to five simultaneous attacks.” Yet neither FAA Administrator Jane Garvey nor Transportation Secretary Mineta were informed of the decisions of this meeting or tasked to carry them out.

The Bush administration initially opposed the formation of the 9/11 commission, only accepting it when the families began a public campaign against the refusal to hold an investigation more than a year after the bloodiest single event on US soil since the Civil War. Even after the formation of the commission, headed by trusted figures in the political establishment, the FAA in particular refused to cooperate. The agency had to be subpoenaed by the commission and directed by the White House to comply before it would deliver records on the responses of air traffic controllers and the radar record of the movement of air defense fighters on September 11.

The latest revelation about the circumstances leading up to the 9/11 attack also suggests the following obvious question, although the Times does not ask it: If the FAA had 52 warnings, how many did the CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have?

Yes, the CIA, FBI and every other agency was in W's office screaming we're all going to die to W and he ignored them all! Idiot

In W's defense, there was no actionable intel at his disposal that would have prevented 911. Even the 'smoking gun' August 6th memo was just a vague list of possibilities, with no particular method or target prioritized over any other.

Exactly. You do know I was being sarcastic to EdTheLemur, right? As you say, there are endless warnings about everything. That's why we have endless layers of intelligence roll up and evaluation. There's no indication W had any credible direct warning or any action that would have stopped it. The guy had been President only six months, it's ridiculous

 

[ogibillm]

the truth is there is no context that makes guiliani's statement true.

Context proves the op and the ABC headline a lie, of course you're good with their lies, aren't you?

they could have been more precise

but then saying "they all started when clinton and obama got into office" supports the headline

Except he didn't say that did he?

The hell he didn't...

"Remember, we didn't start this war. They did. We don't want this war. They do. Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

it was in the video....

 

[edthecynic]

But Guiliani the liar does not say 8 years either, he says "UNDER BUSH!"

Right, 9/11 hijackers were in the US training and preparing under Clinton and attacked shortly after with Clinton's airline security procedures. W hadn't had a chance to do anything about it yet. If you don't agree with that it's one thing. To claim that duh, dar, drool, you don't even know what he meant is just stupid

Bullshit!

US air traffic authority had multiple Bin Laden hijack warnings before 9/11
By Patrick Martin
11 February 2005
According to former officials of the 9/11 commission who spoke with the Times, the Bush administration finally approved both the classified report on the FAA’s performance before September 11 and a declassified 120-page version two weeks ago, delivering them to the National Archives. The declassified version is heavily “redacted,” with significant passages entirely deleted. Nonetheless, the Times reported, “the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.”

The declassified report says that the FAA officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and that “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” according to the Times.

Altogether, FAA officials received 52 intelligence reports from their own security branch that named bin Laden or Al Qaeda, during the five months before September 11. Either the terrorist leader or his network was mentioned in half of all the intelligence summaries circulated through the agency leadership. Five of these reports discussed Al Qaeda’s ability to conduct hijackings, while two mentioned suicide operations.

It has been previously reported that the FAA issued general warnings to the airline industry in the spring and summer of 2001 about the possibility of hijackings by Islamic terrorists. One such warning, cited in the 9/11 commission document, cautions US airport administrators that while the FAA still regarded an overseas hijacking as the greater likelihood, if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.” This quote refutes once again the statements by Bush administration representatives like Condoleezza Rice, who notoriously declared, in 2002, that no one could have imagined “that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”

According to the 9/11 commission document, the FAA “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.” In 2001 the FAA distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said, and the FAA conducted briefings during the summer for security officials from 19 of the busiest US airports, specifically warning of the threat posed by bin Laden and his organization. This did not stop the hijackers from successfully boarding airplanes at Boston, Newark and Dulles Airports only months later.

A number of issues are raised by the Times report on the 9/11 commission document. It vindicates the testimony of Mary Schiavo, former inspector general of the Department of Transportation, who has been a public critic of the FAA and an ally of the September 11 families, who sought to force an independent investigation of the role of the federal government before and during the attacks.

Schiavo said in her statement to the commission, “The notion that these hijackings and terrorism were an unforeseen and unforeseeable risk is an airline and FAA public-relations management myth.” She was opposed by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta—the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet—who told the commission, “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile.”

The document also confirms the testimony of former Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who charged that the administration had been grossly negligent about security preparations in relation to US air traffic in the period leading up to September 11. On July 5, 2001, Clarke, Rice, and Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, convened a meeting of domestic agency heads to discuss urgent counterterrorism preparations.

An e-mail message the following day from Clarke to Rice noted that the meeting had agreed on developing “detailed response plans in the event of three to five simultaneous attacks.” Yet neither FAA Administrator Jane Garvey nor Transportation Secretary Mineta were informed of the decisions of this meeting or tasked to carry them out.

The Bush administration initially opposed the formation of the 9/11 commission, only accepting it when the families began a public campaign against the refusal to hold an investigation more than a year after the bloodiest single event on US soil since the Civil War. Even after the formation of the commission, headed by trusted figures in the political establishment, the FAA in particular refused to cooperate. The agency had to be subpoenaed by the commission and directed by the White House to comply before it would deliver records on the responses of air traffic controllers and the radar record of the movement of air defense fighters on September 11.

The latest revelation about the circumstances leading up to the 9/11 attack also suggests the following obvious question, although the Times does not ask it: If the FAA had 52 warnings, how many did the CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have?

Yes, the CIA, FBI and every other agency was in W's office screaming we're all going to die to W and he ignored them all! Idiot

In W's defense, there was no actionable intel at his disposal that would have prevented 911. Even the 'smoking gun' August 6th memo was just a vague list of possibilities, with no particular method or target prioritized over any other.

Exactly. You do know I was being sarcastic to EdTheLemur, right? As you say, there are endless warnings about everything. That's why we have endless layers of intelligence roll up and evaluation. There's no indication W had any credible direct warning or any action that would have stopped it. The guy had been President only six months, it's ridiculous

It was over 7 months and he was transitioned before he took office starting Dec 12, 2000, so it was in all practicality a full 10 months.

 

[Faun]

But Guiliani the liar does not say 8 years either, he says "UNDER BUSH!"

Right, 9/11 hijackers were in the US training and preparing under Clinton and attacked shortly after with Clinton's airline security procedures. W hadn't had a chance to do anything about it yet. If you don't agree with that it's one thing. To claim that duh, dar, drool, you don't even know what he meant is just stupid

Bullshit!

US air traffic authority had multiple Bin Laden hijack warnings before 9/11
By Patrick Martin
11 February 2005
According to former officials of the 9/11 commission who spoke with the Times, the Bush administration finally approved both the classified report on the FAA’s performance before September 11 and a declassified 120-page version two weeks ago, delivering them to the National Archives. The declassified version is heavily “redacted,” with significant passages entirely deleted. Nonetheless, the Times reported, “the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.”

The declassified report says that the FAA officials were “lulled into a false sense of security,” and that “intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,” according to the Times.

Altogether, FAA officials received 52 intelligence reports from their own security branch that named bin Laden or Al Qaeda, during the five months before September 11. Either the terrorist leader or his network was mentioned in half of all the intelligence summaries circulated through the agency leadership. Five of these reports discussed Al Qaeda’s ability to conduct hijackings, while two mentioned suicide operations.

It has been previously reported that the FAA issued general warnings to the airline industry in the spring and summer of 2001 about the possibility of hijackings by Islamic terrorists. One such warning, cited in the 9/11 commission document, cautions US airport administrators that while the FAA still regarded an overseas hijacking as the greater likelihood, if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.” This quote refutes once again the statements by Bush administration representatives like Condoleezza Rice, who notoriously declared, in 2002, that no one could have imagined “that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”

According to the 9/11 commission document, the FAA “had indeed considered the possibility that terrorists would hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.” In 2001 the FAA distributed a CD-ROM presentation to airlines and airports that cited the possibility of a suicide hijacking, the report said, and the FAA conducted briefings during the summer for security officials from 19 of the busiest US airports, specifically warning of the threat posed by bin Laden and his organization. This did not stop the hijackers from successfully boarding airplanes at Boston, Newark and Dulles Airports only months later.

A number of issues are raised by the Times report on the 9/11 commission document. It vindicates the testimony of Mary Schiavo, former inspector general of the Department of Transportation, who has been a public critic of the FAA and an ally of the September 11 families, who sought to force an independent investigation of the role of the federal government before and during the attacks.

Schiavo said in her statement to the commission, “The notion that these hijackings and terrorism were an unforeseen and unforeseeable risk is an airline and FAA public-relations management myth.” She was opposed by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta—the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet—who told the commission, “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile.”

The document also confirms the testimony of former Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who charged that the administration had been grossly negligent about security preparations in relation to US air traffic in the period leading up to September 11. On July 5, 2001, Clarke, Rice, and Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, convened a meeting of domestic agency heads to discuss urgent counterterrorism preparations.

An e-mail message the following day from Clarke to Rice noted that the meeting had agreed on developing “detailed response plans in the event of three to five simultaneous attacks.” Yet neither FAA Administrator Jane Garvey nor Transportation Secretary Mineta were informed of the decisions of this meeting or tasked to carry them out.

The Bush administration initially opposed the formation of the 9/11 commission, only accepting it when the families began a public campaign against the refusal to hold an investigation more than a year after the bloodiest single event on US soil since the Civil War. Even after the formation of the commission, headed by trusted figures in the political establishment, the FAA in particular refused to cooperate. The agency had to be subpoenaed by the commission and directed by the White House to comply before it would deliver records on the responses of air traffic controllers and the radar record of the movement of air defense fighters on September 11.

The latest revelation about the circumstances leading up to the 9/11 attack also suggests the following obvious question, although the Times does not ask it: If the FAA had 52 warnings, how many did the CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have?

Yes, the CIA, FBI and every other agency was in W's office screaming we're all going to die to W and he ignored them all! Idiot

In W's defense, there was no actionable intel at his disposal that would have prevented 911. Even the 'smoking gun' August 6th memo was just a vague list of possibilities, with no particular method or target prioritized over any other.

Exactly. You do know I was being sarcastic to EdTheLemur, right? As you say, there are endless warnings about everything. That's why we have endless layers of intelligence roll up and evaluation. There's no indication W had any credible direct warning or any action that would have stopped it. The guy had been President only six months, it's ridiculous

Not true. Just a few years earlier, Clinton received a similar PDB. He had airport security raised at suspect airports in the northeast and there was no attack. Not until Bush became president and did absolutely squat to prevent it.

 

[JWBooth]

According to Rudi "the Pride of New York" Giuliani there were no attacks carried out in the US by Islamic terrorists until President Obama was elected. Off the top of my head, I came up with two (2); 1993 world Trade Center bombing and the calamitous Twin towers attack on 9/11/2001 when that IDIOT Giuliani was Mayor of New York! He even ran for president waving his credentials of leadership reminding everyone of his mayoral prowess by repeating 9/11 several hundred times daily!

Here is what he claimed while on the stump for trump:

"“Before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States,” Giuliani said at an event for Donald Trump in Ohio."
Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Such are the type of people Trump and his campaign obtain to endorse their "efforts".

Mebbe Il Duce has become a 9/11 truther and is now thinking Bush/Israel did it.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

According to Rudi "the Pride of New York" Giuliani there were no attacks carried out in the US by Islamic terrorists until President Obama was elected. Off the top of my head, I came up with two (2); 1993 world Trade Center bombing and the calamitous Twin towers attack on 9/11/2001 when that IDIOT Giuliani was Mayor of New York! He even ran for president waving his credentials of leadership reminding everyone of his mayoral prowess by repeating 9/11 several hundred times daily!

Here is what he claimed while on the stump for trump:

"“Before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States,” Giuliani said at an event for Donald Trump in Ohio."
Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Such are the type of people Trump and his campaign obtain to endorse their "efforts".

Mebbe Il Duce has become a 9/11 truther and is now thinking Bush/Israel did it.

Perhaps so! It's sometime difficult for me to keep up with the shifting whispering sands of "nuance and subtle shadings of expression" displayed on this forum!

 

[OKTexas]

Context proves the op and the ABC headline a lie, of course you're good with their lies, aren't you?

they could have been more precise

but then saying "they all started when clinton and obama got into office" supports the headline

Except he didn't say that did he?

The hell he didn't...

"Remember, we didn't start this war. They did. We don't want this war. They do. Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

It's the last line he utters in the video found in the link in the OP. Why not address it rather than pretend you don't see it?

Which video did you watch? The one at the top of the link ends with the words United States. Also in the article accompanying that video, no where does the name Clinton appear.

Feel free to point to my mistake:

Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

 

[edthecynic]

Which video did you watch? The one at the top of the link ends with the words United States. Also in the article accompanying that video, no where does the name Clinton appear.

Feel free to point to my mistake:

"Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States, They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

 

[Faun]

they could have been more precise

but then saying "they all started when clinton and obama got into office" supports the headline

Except he didn't say that did he?

The hell he didn't...

"Remember, we didn't start this war. They did. We don't want this war. They do. Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

It's the last line he utters in the video found in the link in the OP. Why not address it rather than pretend you don't see it?

Which video did you watch? The one at the top of the link ends with the words United States. Also in the article accompanying that video, no where does the name Clinton appear.

Feel free to point to my mistake:

Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Holyfuckingshit!

There are only two videos in that link associated with that article. That you can't find it speaks volumes to your incompetency.

Despite your inability to find the video on that link, despite there being only two in that article, what do you think? Do you agree with Rudy that domestic radical Islamic terror "all started when Clinton and Obama got into office?"

 

[OKTexas]

Except he didn't say that did he?

The hell he didn't...

"Remember, we didn't start this war. They did. We don't want this war. They do. Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

It's the last line he utters in the video found in the link in the OP. Why not address it rather than pretend you don't see it?

Which video did you watch? The one at the top of the link ends with the words United States. Also in the article accompanying that video, no where does the name Clinton appear.

Feel free to point to my mistake:

Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Holyfuckingshit!

There are only two videos in that link associated with that article. That you can't find it speaks volumes to your incompetency.

Despite your inability to find the video on that link, despite there being only two in that article, what do you think? Do you agree with Rudy that domestic radical Islamic terror "all started when Clinton and Obama got into office?"

So what in the link suggested it was ANOTHER VIDEO? A video which I must say was more in context than the first. Why didn't the author of the link use that video to begin with, other than to cause the reader to draw a conclusion based on a highly out of context quote? My whole point was to point out how intellectually dishonest the OP and the author at ABC were being and I just love seeing regressives getting their panties in a twist trying to defend the dishonesty by expanding the quote to put things more in context. But the short answer to your question, no. Spin on!

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Giuliani: No 'Successful Radical Islamic' US Terror Attacks Before Obama

Sounds like Trump has several "Tokyo Roses" on his team.

Aren't you scumbags supposed to be the tolerant ones about queers?....Thanks for blowing up that myth

We are tolerant of LGBTs. Why do you think they vote Democrat?

For the same reason blacks vote demoRAT...most are too brainwashed to realize you scumbag do nothing to help them....Nothing like having the shooter of The Pulse clubs father sitting right behind your candidate in her Fla. Rally!

Well, Mark Foley wasn't available.

Nor Denny Hastert.

 

[boilermaker55]

Teabaggers are so stupid. They believe what "the donald" tells them. Like in his speech the other night. "I will always tell you the truth: cough cough what a liar

According to Rudi "the Pride of New York" Giuliani there were no attacks carried out in the US by Islamic terrorists until President Obama was elected. Off the top of my head, I came up with two (2); 1993 world Trade Center bombing and the calamitous Twin towers attack on 9/11/2001 when that IDIOT Giuliani was Mayor of New York! He even ran for president waving his credentials of leadership reminding everyone of his mayoral prowess by repeating 9/11 several hundred times daily!

Here is what he claimed while on the stump for trump:

"“Before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States,” Giuliani said at an event for Donald Trump in Ohio."
Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Such are the type of people Trump and his campaign obtain to endorse their "efforts".

 

[boilermaker55]

What a trump wiener sucker you are, maybe you should put on a dress liek giuliani and kneel for "the donald" lol fool

Giuliani: No 'Successful Radical Islamic' US Terror Attacks Before Obama

Sounds like Trump has several "Tokyo Roses" on his team.

Aren't you scumbags supposed to be the tolerant ones about queers?....Thanks for blowing up that myth

We are tolerant of LGBTs. Why do you think they vote Democrat?

For the same reason blacks vote demoRAT...most are too brainwashed to realize you scumbag do nothing to help them....Nothing like having the shooter of The Pulse clubs father sitting right behind your candidate in her Fla. Rally!

 

[g5000]

"Under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack inside the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

A huge lie. A lie bleeved by Trump's Chumps. A lie they are defending tooth and nail, despite being shown over and over it is a lie. In true nazi fashion, they bleev a lie becomes truer the more often it is repeated.


Trump's Chumps DESERVE to be lied to. And they get right back in line for more piss to consume.

 

[Faun]

The hell he didn't...

​

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

It's the last line he utters in the video found in the link in the OP. Why not address it rather than pretend you don't see it?

Which video did you watch? The one at the top of the link ends with the words United States. Also in the article accompanying that video, no where does the name Clinton appear.

Feel free to point to my mistake:

Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Holyfuckingshit!

There are only two videos in that link associated with that article. That you can't find it speaks volumes to your incompetency.

Despite your inability to find the video on that link, despite there being only two in that article, what do you think? Do you agree with Rudy that domestic radical Islamic terror "all started when Clinton and Obama got into office?"

So what in the link suggested it was ANOTHER VIDEO? A video which I must say was more in context than the first. Why didn't the author of the link use that video to begin with, other than to cause the reader to draw a conclusion based on a highly out of context quote? My whole point was to point out how intellectually dishonest the OP and the author at ABC were being and I just love seeing regressives getting their panties in a twist trying to defend the dishonesty by expanding the quote to put things more in context. But the short answer to your question, no. Spin on!

Holyfuckingshit!

You are one brain-dead motherfucker. <smh>

The OP stated, "according to Rudi "the Pride of New York" Giuliani there were no attacks carried out in the US by Islamic terrorists until President Obama was elected."

He then posts a link containing a video where Giuliani says, "they all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

And you're retarded enough to suggest the OP was being dishonest.

But then, I'm pointing this out to a rightard who doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "regressive," and thinks it's progressives, and not conservatives, who are regressive. <smh>

 

[g5000]

they could have been more precise

but then saying "they all started when clinton and obama got into office" supports the headline

Except he didn't say that did he?

The hell he didn't...

"Remember, we didn't start this war. They did. We don't want this war. They do. Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

It's the last line he utters in the video found in the link in the OP. Why not address it rather than pretend you don't see it?

Which video did you watch? The one at the top of the link ends with the words United States. Also in the article accompanying that video, no where does the name Clinton appear.

Feel free to point to my mistake:

Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Right after the third paragraph in that link, there is a 33 second clip of Rudy Giuliani in which he plainly says, "Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."


Thank you for once again demonstrating you Chumps are willfully blind monkeys.

Even so, the statement "Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States" is a huge lie all by itself.

 

[OKTexas]

How about you point were the line you had in bold was included in the video or the article linked in the OP.

It's the last line he utters in the video found in the link in the OP. Why not address it rather than pretend you don't see it?

Which video did you watch? The one at the top of the link ends with the words United States. Also in the article accompanying that video, no where does the name Clinton appear.

Feel free to point to my mistake:

Giuliani Claims No Successful 'Radical Islamic' Attacks in US Before Obama

Holyfuckingshit!

There are only two videos in that link associated with that article. That you can't find it speaks volumes to your incompetency.

Despite your inability to find the video on that link, despite there being only two in that article, what do you think? Do you agree with Rudy that domestic radical Islamic terror "all started when Clinton and Obama got into office?"

So what in the link suggested it was ANOTHER VIDEO? A video which I must say was more in context than the first. Why didn't the author of the link use that video to begin with, other than to cause the reader to draw a conclusion based on a highly out of context quote? My whole point was to point out how intellectually dishonest the OP and the author at ABC were being and I just love seeing regressives getting their panties in a twist trying to defend the dishonesty by expanding the quote to put things more in context. But the short answer to your question, no. Spin on!

Holyfuckingshit!

You are one brain-dead motherfucker. <smh>

The OP stated, "according to Rudi "the Pride of New York" Giuliani there were no attacks carried out in the US by Islamic terrorists until President Obama was elected."

He then posts a link containing a video where Giuliani says, "they all started when Clinton and Obama got into office."

And you're retarded enough to suggest the OP was being dishonest.

But then, I'm pointing this out to a rightard who doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "regressive," and thinks it's progressives, and not conservatives, who are regressive. <smh>

So you're just as intellectually dishonest as the OP. 1. That is an out of context quote the real quote was: "Under the 8 years before Obama came along we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States." Do you see a difference here? 2. The OP didn't then post shit, the link to the second video was contained in the original link, once again you prove facts don't matter to you. Good job regressive!! 3. Also I know exactly what regressive means, you regressives are pushing the US to mimic Sodom and Gomorrah, you can't get more regressive than that. 4. I answered your stupid little question, why do you feel the need to continue to make a ass of yourself?