Rudy Giuliani Criticizes Terror Trial

Check out this video:


http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9510257


I must say I was a little disappointed in you George, I watch you all the time, and with the death of Tim Russert,  I looked to you to be as hard nosed as He was. But boy you really just let that whole remark slip by what the hell were you thinking, how to get out of there without much conflict.  I know that your time is limited but you should have stopped that egotistical hog wash in his hypocritical lie be4 another sentence was uttered.  I mean after listening to him in the primaries talking about 9/11 until you wanted to put tape over his mouth.  Trying to take all the glory from people [the police, firemen, emt's] who gave their lives trying to save us regular Americans. It got to the point that is where he lost alot of support if he had any. Please promise that since you are giving up "This week with" that your stint with GMA will be alot better than this last muddled mess because I believe that you are one of the best morning political commentators with an eye for the truth.  Please do not let us down again.
Posted by: Peggy | Jan 10,2010 2:03:14 PM   ME!!!!!!!!!

Georgie, Georgie, Georgie......what were you thinking not challenging Rudy on GMA??????
         Posted by: Mary | Jan 8, 2010 2:56:44 PM

Very convenient lapse there George, isn't it?

The elite of our media consists of shills and sycophants, especially when it comes to calling on the politicians of the right when they try to bamboozle. Why should anyone expect you to be too much different?

Posted by: gregor | Jan 8, 2010 3:01:02 PM

Too late to apologize George. You are now, and shall forever be in my mind, indicative of a cowardly and greedy media that would be content to sacrifice the future of our society for a year or two of profits. Resign.
Posted by: adam payson | Jan 8, 2010 3:07:17 PM
I too miss Tim Russert!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Michelle | Jan 8, 2010 3:21:10 PM
And we assume you will be making your corrections and apologies on air tomorrow morning. You knew he was wrong when he said it, you owe your viewers an apology and pledge to not be a stenographer in the future.
Posted by: EdrieI | Jan 8, 2010 3:23:50 PM

So Guiliani "clarifies" by suggesting there were no attacks on US soil AFTER 9-11. That's still incorrect!!! When will you call him on THAT lie?

Posted by: Isis | Jan 8, 2010 3:22:32 PM

I have to agree with Isis. There were SEVERAL attacks after 911.

tainted with anthrax kill five across the United States, with politicians and media officials as the apparent targets. On July 31, 2008 Bruce E. Ivins a top biodefense researcher committed suicide.[31] On August 6, 2008 the FBI concluded that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views.

May 2002 Mailbox Pipe Bomber: Lucas John Helder rigged pipe bombs in private mailboxes to explode when the boxes were opened. He injured 6 people in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa. His motivation was to garner media attention so that he could spread a message denouncing government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana as well as promoting astral projection.

2002 July 4: 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, kills two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, although they found no evidence linking Hadayet to any terrorist group.

October 2002 Beltway Sniper Attacks: During three weeks in October 2002 John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people and critically injured three others in Washington D.C, Baltimore, and Virginia. An earlier spree by the pair had resulted in 3 deaths in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, California, Arizona, and Texas to bring the total to 16 deaths. No motivation was given at the trial but evidence presented showed an affinity to the cause of the Islamic jihad.

March 2003 23: Sgt. Hasan Akbarwas charged in a hand grenade and shooting attack that killed Army Captain Christopher Seifert and Air Force Major Gregory Stone, while wounding 14 other soldiers on 23 March 2003. The attack took place at Camp Pennsylvania, Kuwait, a rear base camp for the invasion.

2006 March 5: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".

2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, Egyptian shoots six Jewish women

2007 October 26: A pair of improvised explosive devices were thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. The fake grenades were filled with black powder and detonated by fuses causing very minor damage. Police were investigating the connection between this and a similar attack against the British Consulate in New York in 2005.

2008 February: In the first reported incident of animal-rights extremists physically assaulting the family members of animal researchers, six masked activists attempted to force their way into the home of a University of California, Santa Cruz, researcher and injured the researcher's husband.

2008 March 3: Four multimillion-dollar show homes place in Woodinville, Washington are torched. The Earth Liberation Front is suspected in the fires.

2008 May 4 Multiple nail laden pipe bombs exploded at a Federal Courthouse in San Diego at 1:40 AM causing "considerable damage" to the entrance and lobby and sending shrapnel two blocks away. The F.B.I. is investigating links between this attack and an April 25 explosion at the FedEx building also in San Diego.

2008 July 27 Jim D. Adkisson opened fire in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville,Tennessee killing two and injuring seven before being tackled to the ground by congregation members. A note found in his SUV indicated this was intended as a suicide attack and said the church was apparently targeted because of its support of liberal social policies.
Posted by: Pete | Jan 8, 2010 3:25:31 PM

Mr. Stephanopolous: You do realize that the mayor's clarification is obfuscation, right? His spokesman says that Giuliani was "clearly talking post-9/11". Huh?? He's not taking the position that there were no attacks post-9/11 under Bush but this is an attack under Obama? How is the Christmas attempt different from the Richard Reid attempt - which happened post 9-11 while Bush was president? Giuliani was not telling the truth, just repeating the latest GOP talking point without challenge.

Posted by: Matt | Jan 8, 2010 3:40:05 PM

The Same Old Washington Blame Game

Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on December 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM EST

There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day. I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

Ed Shultz doesn't pull any punches he says exactly what he means and he stands by it. He doesn't care for the current senate health care bill, he is not happy with the Gop and their hate talk, he doesn't like the idea that both house and senate lawmakers are asking for money for their reelection funds by making the attempted terrorist attack on an airliner as their war cry. That the Dems are making our country less secure by giving certain terrorist civil trials and not military tribunals, where so called interrogators can use certain illegal actions to get information out of the people. From what I hear the accused terrorist is talking nicely. A certain Rep Pete Hoekstra has sent out a letter asking for money from his constitutes if they do not think the current party has kept our country secure. worst yet that both House and Senate republicans are sending out fund raising material off the attempted terrorist attack against Americans, Like they kept our country safe in 2001 when the towers were struck and some 3000 Americans died. They think because no one tried anything big after that they kept our country secure, with water boarding they kept our country secure, fighting in the wrong war kept our country secure. SHAME ON THEM...THEY ARE IN TOTAL DENIAL

Ed wanted a push back from the Democrats a resolution against Mr Cheney and here it is:
To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. The difference is this: President Obama doesn't need to beat his chest
to prove it, and unlike the last administration we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we are at war with something that is tangible: Al-qaEda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American People are endangered. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.

You can read the entire article in my next blog.....

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Olbermann: Ruined Senate bill unsupportable Conservatives have destroyed this version of health care reform

This Post is late very late because I have been sick, I will be more timely from now on....

I have chosen some select words from Olbermann's Special Comment on Health Care reform Bill HR 30-90 They are how I feel I could not say them as good as meaningful as Mr Olbermann can.

You have just agreed to purchase a product. If you do not, you will be breaking the law and subject to a fine. You have no control over how much you will pay for the product. The government will have virtually no control over how much the company will charge for the product.

Which brings us to Mr. Lieberman of Connecticut, the one man at the center of this farcical perversion of what a government is supposed to be. Out of pique, out of revenge, out of betrayal of his earlier wiser saner self, he has sold untold hundreds of thousands of us into pain and fear and privation and slavery — for money. He has been bought and sold by the insurance lobby. He has become a Senatorial prostitute. And sadly, the President has not provided the leadership his office demands.

No single payer? No sale. No public option? No sale. No Medicare buy-in? No sale. I am one of the self-insured, albeit by choice. And I hereby pledge that I will not buy this perversion of health care reform. Pass this at your peril, Senators, and sign it at yours, Mr. President. I will not buy this insurance. Brand me a lawbreaker if you choose. Fine me if you will. Jail me if you must.

those elected by us to act for us have forgotten what must be the golden rule of health care reform. It is the same one to which physicians are bound, by oath:

First do no harm.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Just my two cents Mr Cheney

Ex Vice President Cheney is some what a big blow hard, he seems to forget that on his watch we were attacked, he seems to conveniently forget that President Bush did not comment on the shoe bomber for 6 [count them 6] days while on vacation. but Cheney contends that Pres Obama does not think we are at war and that is not the same thing as what President Obama did by not saying anything for 72 hours. Cheney dismisses everything that Pres. Obama does, and has gone to the point of accusing him of being a traitor. I think we should look at Cheney and bush for doing things they should be held accountable for. Although I do commend Mr Bush for not putting his two cents worth in, I wish I could say the same thing about Cheney, I wish I could put a good piece of tape across his big trap door, so he will keep quiet. But then again that would be taking away his first amendment rights under the constitution. And we do not want to do that, now do we, ho ho ho ha he he he

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

New Years 2010

Wishing all a very blessed New Years, keep watch I will be back blogging soon as I am shall we say in the pink. Write down your resolutions for this new year new beginnings, lets see how we can all make this a better year than the last

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What the heck does the Senate think they are doing? Senate DEMS WAKE UP

AARP.org
Senate may drop public option
Reid says he is optimistic about bill after deal

By: Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery | Source: Washington Post | December 9, 2009


Democratic Senate negotiators struck a tentative agreement Tuesday night to drop the controversial government-run insurance plan from their overhaul of the health-care system, hoping to remove a last major roadblock preventing the bill from moving to a final vote in the chamber.

Under the deal, the government plan preferred by liberals would be replaced with a program that would create several national insurance policies administered by private companies but negotiated by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health policies for federal workers. If private firms were unable to deliver acceptable national policies, a government plan would be created.

In addition, people as young as 55 would be permitted to buy into Medicare, the popular federal health program for retirees. And private insurance companies would face stringent new regulations, including a requirement that they spend at least 90 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical services for their customers.

The announcement came after six days of negotiations among 10 Democrats -- five liberals and five moderates -- appointed by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to work out differences between the two camps on the public option and other pressing issues. Appearing in the Capitol with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the liberal faction, and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), representing moderates, Reid hailed the deal as a broad agreement that has the potential to "overcome a real problem that we had" and push the measure to final Senate vote before Christmas.

"Not everyone is going to agree with every piece," Reid said. But when asked whether the deal means the end is in sight after nearly a year of work on President Obama's most important domestic initiative, he smiled. "The answer's yes," he said.

According to a Democrat briefed on the talks, the deal represents only an agreement among the 10 negotiators to send the new package to congressional budget analysts, not an agreement to support its elements. One of the negotiators, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), quickly issued a statement criticizing the deal.

"While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach," he said. He added, however, that he will base his vote "on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I think the bill is good for Wisconsin."

Democrats must also win the approval of several key lawmakers who have not been involved in the talks, including Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), the only Republican who has voted in favor of the Democratic health initiative. If the Senate approves the agreement, it will face a huge obstacle in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has fought hard to preserve a public plan in the face of opposition from House moderates.

If the deal holds, it will represent a major breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues of the health-care debate, settling a dispute between moderates wary of excessive government intrusion into the private sector and liberals determined to create a strong competitor able to curb the most egregious abuses in the private insurance industry.

"It may be different from what was previously included in the bill," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley, "but it accomplishes the same goals as a so-called public option."

Abortion issue

Earlier in the day, the Senate turned back an amendment that would have barred millions of Americans from purchasing subsidized insurance policies that cover abortion, as Democratic leaders struggled to maintain a delicate party coalition. The amendment was rejected 54 to 45. Although the outcome of the vote was not a surprise, the defeat could cost Reid the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a conservative Democrat who has threatened to join a GOP filibuster of the bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Nelson is one of five moderates in the Democratic caucus demanding changes to the legislation, forcing Reid to balance their concerns with those of liberals as he seeks to maintain the 60 votes needed to push a bill across the finish line. The biggest challenge has been determining the fate of the public option, a chief priority for progressive Democrats.

Key liberals said they were prepared to abandon a government-run insurance program if it would move the chamber closer to a final deal, provided it was replaced with other coverage options and tighter restrictions on insurance companies. "I don't think we're going to get that right now," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said of the public option. "So we're going for as strong a regulation guidance as we possibly can."

Democrats made a different calculation on abortion. Although the House voted Nov. 7 to bar their public plan from offering abortion coverage and to prohibit people from using federal subsidies to purchase private policies that cover elective abortion, Senate Democrats rejected Nelson's measure, despite the potential threat to final passage. Six Democrats joined all but two Republicans to support the tighter rules, but some Democratic abortion opponents -- including Reid -- opposed the amendment as too far-reaching.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid said the current Senate language, which would allow individuals who qualify for insurance subsidies to purchase abortion coverage with their own money, represented "a fair middle ground."

He told reporters that he will seek other avenues in attempting to allay Nelson's concerns, but added, "This is not the right place for this debate. We have to get on with the larger issue at hand." After the vote, Nelson said he will not rule out supporting the final Senate measure. "Let's see what develops. One thing I've found is that the future sometimes can surprise you," he said.

Nearing the finish line

A series of pending amendments, including several popular measures, must be resolved before Reid can end debate on the bill and call a final vote. On Wednesday, the Senate is expected to consider a bipartisan effort to allow cheaper prescription drugs to be imported from Canada and other countries. And a group of Senate Democratic freshmen is pushing a package of cost-control provisions, including an expansion of an independent Medicare advisory board that would allow it to recommend changes to the entire health-care system.

Despite the full slate, Reid said he is optimistic. "Every day that we work on these amendments and do the negotiations we're doing," he told reporters, "the closer we get to the finish line."

After the vote, Nelson returned to the talks about the public option. In addition to the ideas accepted late Tuesday, the group had been discussing an additional expansion of Medicaid eligibility, an idea that many moderates dismissed as too expensive. Many also have doubts about letting younger people who do not have access to coverage through an employer buy into Medicare.

By some estimates, that idea could add as many as 3 million people to the financially struggling program. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that those these individuals could face annual premiums of as much as $7,600. And because such a program could encourage people to retire earlier than they might otherwise, a buy-in program could increase Social Security costs for the federal government.

Still, key senators, including Snowe, said they would be willing to discuss a Medicare buy-in program so long as states with particularly low Medicare reimbursement rates were compensated and a mechanism was adopted to ensure that Medicare would not suffer financially because of the expansion.

If you would like to discuss health care reform in AARP's Online Community, please join the group Health Action Now Mythbusters.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals

Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals - Kaiser Family Foundation


Achieving comprehensive health reform has emerged as a leading priority of the President and Congress. President Obama has outlined eight principles for health reform, seeking to address not only the 45 million people who lack health insurance, but also rising health care costs and lack of quality. In Congress, a number of comprehensive reform proposals have been announced as the debate proceeds over how to overhaul the health care system.

This interactive side-by-side compares the leading comprehensive reform proposals across a number of key characteristics and plan components. Included in this side-by-side are proposals for moving toward universal coverage that have been put forward by the President and Members of Congress. In an effort to capture the most important proposals, we have included those that have been formally introduced as legislation as well as those that have been offered as draft proposals or as policy options. It will be regularly updated to reflect changes in the proposals and to incorporate major new proposals as they are announced. This side-by-side offers a summary of the major components of these proposals. The Foundation also has prepared detailed descriptions of the Medicare and Medicaid provisions, and a summary of the coverage provisions, in the legislation moving through Congress.

This is not about Politics. This is about People's Lives. This is about OUR Future

HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM
REALITY CHECK

Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check


Check this site out it does answer questions

First Lady Highlights Health Care Reform Issues Affecting Older Women

First lady Michelle Obama hosted a group of women leaders in the East Room of the White House Friday in an event designed to highlight the plight of older women grappling with the inequities of the current health care system.

“Our entire lives as women,” Obama said, “we are asked to bear much of the responsibility for our family’s health and well-being, and yet we often face special challenges when it comes to our own health insurance.”

The problems of cost and coverage only grow worse as women age, she contended. “Older women are more likely than men to face chronic illness,” she said, “but they are less likely to be able to afford the cost of treating that illness.” Obama added that recent studies have shown women over the age of 65 spend 17 percent of their income on health care.

“Our mothers and grandmothers, they have taken care of us all their lives. They’ve made the sacrifices,” she said. “America has the responsibility to give all seniors the golden years that they deserve and the secure, dignified retirement that they worked so hard to achieve,” she added.

The first lady said health insurance reform would cap out-of-pocket expenses and make it against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

She said that health care reform would make Medicare “more stable and more secure by eliminating wasteful subsidies and cracking down on fraud and abuse,” adding that President Obama is committed to closing the Medicare coverage gap.

“My husband believes that Medicare is a sacred part of America’s social safety net, and it’s a safety net that he will protect with health insurance reform,” she said.

“People shouldn’t have to wake up every morning worried about what would happen if they got sick. They should have a sense of security and peace of mind.”

Olbermann on Afghanistan: Get out now

In the face political and financial opportunism, not to mention outright lies about the war in Afghanistan, and the stark historical warning represented by Vietnam, President Obama should make the change he promised during his campaign and pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.

I unfortunately agree with Keith and we need to get our troops home. The cost of this war at home and aboard is way too much. Our soldiers believe they are doing the right thing. I commend them, but they have given up too much home, love, health, it is time we bring them home and show them how much we appreciate them for their sacrifice and for our freedom.....BRING THEM HOME..BRING THEM HOME....That should be our war cry.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's time Washington looks out for us!

Defend your Dollars. org

Fill out and send the email, NOW!!!!!!

I believe that you are part of the wall street card game, and that you do not care for anything other than the all mighty dollar sign, and personally I would love to see every bank on wall street fail, because you have become this humongous monopoly, and everybody says your too "BIG" to Fail. Hogwash!!! You have too many of the little people right where you want them between your thumb (your corporate CEO's) and your pointer finger (stockholders) who are only interested in profits. Customers are your backbone, not lobbyist, not congressperson. Yet, you pay through the nose the lobbyists to pay the congress to pass or fail bills according to your whims, without regard to us main street USA. How rude, I keep hoping that wall street and the stock market falls ro the GROUND and dies a very brutle, lingering death.....