English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070810/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_ground_zero

For those of you who don't want to go to the link:

Giuliani's explanation further angered his ground zero critics, prompting several to issue a statement demanding an apology.

"He is such a liar, because the only time he was down there was for photo ops with celebrities, with politicians, with diplomats," said deputy fire chief Jimmy Riches, who spent months digging for his firefighter son.

"On 9/11 all he did was run. He got that soot on him, and I don't think he's taken a shower since."

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, a union that fiercely opposes Giuliani, said he doubted Giuliani misspoke.

"I think he was simply showing what his true character is — a self-absorbed, self-deluded promoter who got caught and is now just simply trying to backtrack," Schaitberger said.

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't they?

2007-08-10 11:16:31 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Elections

11 answers

Guiliani is absolute garbage... I would never vote for him even if they paid me...

More about 9/11 and his scandals
The firefighters, who blame Giuliani for outdated radios that failed on 9/11 and for suspending the search at ground zero when they say 242 firefighters were still missing, haven't been alone in questioning the former mayor's leadership. Though the federal 9/11 commission treated Giuliani with kid gloves during its hearings, it concluded that he had failed to get the police and fire departments to cooperate before the attacks and hadn't resolved a decade-old problem with firefighters' radios.

In their 2006 book, Grand Illusion, authors Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins also fault the mayor for moving the city's emergency command center to the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center in 1998. It put the center in a building that was part of the twin tower complex, which terrorists had attacked five years earlier. "He had prepared the city? Handled the aftermath? Fallacy," Barrett says.

the lack of radio contact led directly to the deaths of 121 of their comrades—a total of 343 firefighters perished that day—who never received two evacuation orders before the North Tower collapsed. "[Giuliani's] attempt to be president of the United States is based solely on this urban legend, this myth of leadership on 9/11," says the union's general president, Harold Schaitberger.

some victims' family members aren't giving up. As Rudy Giuliani makes his run for the presidency, members of a group called Sept. 11 Firefighters and Families for Truth are protesting at campaign events around New York. They're echoing the earlier beefs and arguing that the city was not well prepared to deal with a terrorist attack. In regard to 9/11, they say, Giuliani was no hero

2007-08-10 11:22:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Ron Paul would be the greatest choice ever, not Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani does not realize that the nation building America has been doing over the past many years is very destructive, wasteful, creates more enemies (which is why there was World War I - too many European countries were nation building), and is a very greedy move (nation building ultimately gives more money to corporations). Rudy Giuliani would give more power to corporations (e.g. emminent domain) and would increase the number of illegal immigrants (a highway is going to be built from Mexico through Texas and the rest of the United States and you don't need anything to get across the highway - Rudy Giuliani would not stop that, whereas Ron Paul would). Ron Paul is well studied and knows the areas where government spends too much, whereas Rudy Giuliani is obviously not. Ron Paul is also the only nominee to address the $9 trillion debt America faces and many economists support his nomination, because he is the only nominee who could successfully help business. Rudy Giuliani would be a poor choice to go against Hillary Clinton - he is a neo-conservative like George Bush and the only reason why she is popular is because a lot of people hate neo-conservatives and their nation building. Guess what? Ron Paul would end the war in Iraq, stop nation building, and, if he were the nominee, would draw those votes away from Hillary Clinton. I mean, no one likes her - the reason they want her to win is because people would be picking the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul is the only one who has a chance of going against her! So, Rudy Giuliani would be a terrible nominee - Ron Paul would be great!

2016-05-19 02:13:37 · answer #2 · answered by nikki 3 · 0 0

I wouldn't give this self-absorbed promoter any more thought. The Republicans don't even have a chance in 08. George W. has taken care of that. Why, as a matter of fact, Giuliani's own daughter is campaigning for Obama.

2007-08-10 11:30:59 · answer #3 · answered by soulguy85 6 · 0 1

They have to scrape the bottom - who else do they have?

Mitt 'Two-Faced Flip-Flopper' Romney?

John 'I love the Iraq War' McCain?

Fred 'I'm going to wait until the last minute to declare my candidacy so nobody realizes I have zero substance' Thompson?

Pretty pathetic, but Rudy 'Elect me because 9/11!' Giuliani is the best they've got. They have no chance in 2008.

2007-08-10 11:23:35 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1 2

Giuliani was creepy before 9/11. Now I would be horrified if we went from one president who used 9/11 to burn the Constitution and ignite world discord, to a president who wanted to start building on top of the wreckage without even pulling out the bodies.

2007-08-10 11:21:16 · answer #5 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 3 2

Guiliani (apologies for my butchering the spelling) is not the frontrunner and hasn't been nominated by the party. Any tom dick or harry registered republican can run. No one chose Guiliani but G. himself.

He is currently #3 behind romney and thompson according to most polls. How can you call him the frontrunner when he isn't even beating a guy whose not in the race yet (thompson)?

2007-08-10 11:22:58 · answer #6 · answered by aberrant_unc 2 · 1 2

After all that long babel, are saying the democrats are not opportunist,self-absorbed, self-deluded promoters of their personal agenda??

2007-08-10 11:26:14 · answer #7 · answered by Jan Luv 7 · 1 1

Lord, I cannot believe this one...... if there are any two "people" that are opportunists would be the Clinton's.

Both have been there over and over and will return to the bottom of the barrel.

scummy real scummy........

2007-08-10 11:26:35 · answer #8 · answered by anthony p 3 · 0 2

Just like the Democrats are scrapping the scum off the edges at the bottom with Hillary and Obama

Dont support rudy but would never support the two democrat clowns

2007-08-10 11:20:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 5

and who is the democratic front runner oh yeah someone involed i na crooked land deal and had vince foster killed

2007-08-10 11:21:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers