Rudy Giuliani praises 2006 Terror trial; Now against KSM Trial in New York

One thing that irks me to the bone is Politicians who are able to change their stance in the blink of an eye. Case in point, Rudy Giuliani.

In the 2006 trial of 20th Hijacker Moussaoui, Rudy said:

"At the same time, I was in awe of our system," the former mayor continued. "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

But now, in the age of where no Republican can be for whatever Obama is for, Rudy has done a 180 and now says in an interview with Fox News that he is against a United States Trial for KSM. See below:

Wallace:I want to take you back to what you said after the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. You said this, “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead.”

And after the 2006 trial of the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, you said, “It shows that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of war (sic).” Respectfully, Mayor, you supported civilian trials for terrorists then.

GIULIANI: And if there’s no other alternative, I support civilian trials for terrorists. The reality is there is another alternative here. And this administration has created tribunals. At least five, possibly more, terrorists are going to be tried in those tribunals.

If there was no other choice, again, Chris, I support this. If there was no other choice and they had to be tried in New York, of course they should be tried in New York. But the reality is there is another choice. It is a better choice for the government. This choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists. Why would you seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you’re giving the -- than you’re giving the public?

Jack Reed came out later and refuted Giuliani's statements as idiotic at best:

REED: Well, as you pointed out, in 2006, Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, under the Bush administration was tried in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Giuliani was one who testified in the penalty phase and he, as you indicated, claimed this was a symbol of American justice, as he said in 1993.

But this was not 1993. This was 2006. The alternative existed for a military tribunal then. The Bush administration decided to make the case in federal court. They succeeded. A hundred and ninety or so terrorists have been convicted in federal courts, only a handful -- less than 10 -- in tribunals.

There are 200 individuals serving time in federal facilities now for their terrorist crimes. So what was a statesmanlike decision by the Bush administration can’t be a political decision by this administration.

Sean Hannity admits doctoring Protest footage

And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Fox's tricky editing techniques.

The Obama "WAR" on Christmas

The following email/bullshit made its way to my inbox this morning:

White House will not do Christmas

Thought you might be interested in this information from the White House. This isn’t a rumor; this is a fact.

We have a friend at church who is a very talented artist. For several years she, among many others, has painted ornaments to be hung on the various White House Christmas trees. The WH usually sends out an invitation to send an ornament and informs the artists of the theme for the year.

She got her letter from the WH recently. It said that they would not be called Christmas trees this year. They will be called Holiday trees. And, to please not send any ornaments painted with a religious theme.

Like an educated person, I don't take these things at face value. So I looked into it and found that the "War" on Christmas this year, is complete bullshit and is just meant to hype up the base.

PolitiFact.com's "Truth-O-Meter" gives this rumor a rating of "Pants on Fire," meaning that this "friend at church" is a Liar, Liar. PolitiFact.com contacted White House Spokesperson Kate Bedingfield who denied any such letter or name change to the White House Christmas Tree:

"'There is no truth to this, and the letter referenced in the e-mail does not exist,' [Kate Bedingfield] said. 'No letter has gone out yet from the White House pertaining to Christmas tree ornaments.' She added, 'The trees in the White House will be called Christmas trees, and the tree on the Ellipse will be called the National Christmas Tree. There will be no name changes.'"

Conservative Wing Nut claims Fort Hood Shooter advised Obama

This guy is bat shit crazy.

Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily recently released an article stating that the Fort Hood shooter Maj. Malik Hasan had advised President Obama during his transition to power.

This, of course, is nothing short of a lie.

Corsi's sole piece of evidence for this is a document from May 19, 2009 by the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute. In this document, Hasan is listed on Page 29...as a "Task Force Event Participant".

He was one of hundreds listed as "participant" and apparently did not do much participating. He sat in the audience. It's kind of like little league, everyone gets a trophy.

Nidal was not the author of the document. He was not a member of the HSPI's "Presidential Transition Task Force." Nor was he a member of the HSPI's "Task Force Staff." He was not a member of the HSPI's Steering Committee or a briefer to the task force.

Sen. Vitter turns his back and walks away from Rape Victim.

These people are disgusting.


Sen. Vitter was confronted by a rape victim for his vote against the Franken amendment that stripped Federal money from companies who silenced victims of rape who worked for them.

WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen

VITTER: And I'm absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.

WOMAN: But there are rape victims who are being kept silent.

WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?
Story continues below

VITTER: Ma'am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.

WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.

VITTER: You realize Mr. Obama was against that amendment that his administration was against that amendment

WOMAN: But I'm not asking Obama. I'm asking you.

VITTER: Do you think he's in favor in rape?

WOMAN: I'm asking you Senator. What if it was your daughter who was raped? Would you tell her to be quiet and take it? Would you tell your daughter to be silent

Vitter's excuse here doesn't exactly hold water. While the Obama Defense Department raised concerns about the reach of the Franken amendment, the White House itself said it supported "the intent" and was working to make sure it was "enforceable."

The Defining Moment.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Economic Prize winner and a columnist for the New York Times (Commie, Liberal Smut Rag). I try to catch him whenever he is on TV and absorb as much knowledge as possible.

His latest blog takes on the health care issue and where it currently is at in the legislation process, he says:

The odd thing about this group is that while its members are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of passing health care reform, they’re having a hard time explaining exactly what their problem is. Or to be more precise and less polite, they have been attacking proposed legislation for doing things it doesn’t and for not doing things it does.

Thus, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says, “I want to be able to vote for a health bill, but my top concern is the deficit.” That would be a serious objection to the proposals currently on the table if they would, in fact, increase the deficit. But they wouldn’t, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the House bill, in particular, would actually reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade.

What's the next excuse Joe?

You can read the rest of the Op-Ed Here.

Premature Celebration.

Republicans and Conservatives have for the past several months been gloating that they are poised to take back Congress in the 2010 midterm elections. With the media portraying tea parties, angry town halls and and massive "grassroots" movement brewing by the GOP, it's no wonder why the average Fox News viewer would believe this.

But the numbers just don't add up.

First of all, a few facts for you:

- The Democrats currently control the House by a 79 seat margain (Minus 2 current vacancies) and Republicans would have to gain 40 seats to once again control the House.
- With the Democrats up 60-40 in the Senate, the Republicans would have to win 11 seats to once again control the Senate.

History does not seem to appear on their side. Only a handful of times has a lead so large been surmounted by the minority party. In 1994, the Republicans gained 54 seats in the House. So what would stop the Republicans from doing it again? Besides lacking the leadership and direction they had in 1994 with Newt Gingrich, the polls show the Republican party approval rating is at the bottom of the barrel.

In a recent poll by ABC/WaPo, only 20% of adults identify themselves as Republican (A 26 year low), and only 19% express confidence in Republicans to make the right decisions.

Poll respondents are evenly divided when asked whether they have confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future, but just 19 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to do so. Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to make good choices.

Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.

The wide gap in partisan leanings and the lack of confidence in the GOP carries into early assessments of the November 2010 midterm elections: Fifty-one percent say they would back the Democratic candidate in their congressional district if the elections were held now, while 39 percent would vote for the Republican. Independents split 45 percent for the Democrat, 41 percent for the Republican.

Of course though, ABC/WaPo is liberal commie smut. So lets look at another poll. Research 2000 says below:

Since January 8, Dems have gone from +8 net favorability to -10 -- an 18-point drop. Republicans have gone from -28 to -46 -- an 18 point drop.

And really, I'd rather be the party at -10 than the one at -46. Wouldn't you?


While it's true, Obama's numbers are down along with the Democrats, the Republican numbers are catastrophic anywhere but the south.


This is a base election and the Republicans seem to be more energized, but it is just not translating into numbers. The House and members of the Senate fought hard this summer and did not back down from the lies and smear campaigns that were conducted by the right. The Tea Bagging movement is appearing to lose steam and the media is already wearing thin with the Republicans appearing to offer no solutions and merely conduct themselves as a "Party of No".

Throwing all these factors on top of the fact that the Republicans trail on virtually every issues on every credible poll (Even with the South boosting their numbers), the idea that the Republicans are taking back Congress seems to be a myth.

The party remains a regional stump party with no new ideas that is doing nothing but pandering to their far right extremist base.

Obama's Czar's

A lot of hooey is being made about the number of "Czars" that Obama has in his administration. Of course this is being propagated on Fox News insinuating that this is a clue to his secret Socialist agenda. In case you are unaware, I put the Czar's description via Wikipedia below:

Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official.

So how did this term find our way into American Politics?

Easy. The termanology was popularized by Ronald Reagan and is media slang to shorten the officials full title. In fact, a number of the Obama "Czar's" have been confirmed by the Senate, by some of the SAME REPUBLICANS WHO ARE MAKING THESE STATEMENTS!!

I wonder why Glenn Beck and Fox News don't explain this in their commentary.

Center-Right Country

The GOP loves to make the claim that the United States is a center-right country.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, exhibit 1(A) in the form of the county voting trends for the 2008 election:



I rest my case.