Rudy Giuliani, 1/2010: “We had no domestic* attacks under Bush; we’ve had one under Obama.”
Mary Matalin, 12/2009: “We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history.”
Dana Perino, 11/2009: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.”
This looks like a concerted effort to distance the Republican Party from 9-11. Is that what’s going on? Can it work?
*“Domestic” might allow some definitional wiggle-room, I guess.
It’s a pretty obviously concerted attempt to push 9/11 back into the Clinton administration in the public memory. GIULIANI, for fuck’s sake! This is the man who couldn’t speak a sentence that didn’t have “9/11” in it a little over a year ago. Suddenly, 9/11 didn’t happen, or at least not after January 20, 2001.
Or the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that. I’ll give him a break on 2002.
This isn’t a strategic decision by Republican party about using September 11th as a partisan weapon. It’s just lying to make Obama look bad. It’s convenient forgetfulness, the same way former Bush administration people were slamming Obama for taking too long to respond to the underwear bombing when Bush had taken twice as long to say anything about Richard Reid. It’s meaningless political tit for tat.
Do you have a cite for the full quote? It seems awfully incredulous of Giuliani to think that people would forget about 9-11. My guess is that they mean since 9-11 (which is a bit retarded but not factually wrong).
That may be what he means, but that’s not what he says. Here’s the video; he says it at about 3:23. He’s actually using it as a point of evidence that Bush did some things right and Obama should be following his lead.
Even pretending 9-11didn’t happen, Gulliani’s statement is weird. He says Obama has had one domestic attack on his watch, but the Christmas plane bombing was a failed attack, and if we’re counting those, then Bush has had several, including the very similar case of the shoe-bomber.
(plus Bush was also Prez during the whole anthrax thing, which everyone seems to forget, but was a successful domestic terrorist attack as well).
So Gulliani’s falsehood density in that sentence is pretty high, even by the standards of current political discourse.
No. It’s not that 9/11 is no longer useful. It’s that the Republicans, who supported Bush nearly universally until near the end of his term, cannot deal with all the damage W did to the country. They need some way to feel good about supporting the man, and believing that ‘he kept us safe’ fits the bill.
If a bunch of terrorist attacks and a drowned city have to be moved through time in order to do that, so be it.
They will feel righteous about themselves again!
Let’s hope it’s outlived any usefulness to the Republican party. That way the Democrats don’t have to be such big pussies about kowtowing to anyone who brings it up.
Its simply more of the Republican party’s “we can say absolutely anything we want because our base is made up of idiots” highly successful strategy for controlling the message.
They lie because it works, has worked and will continue to work.
The Democratic party allows misinformation to survive and fester until it becomes fact among the populace. I really don’t understand why they do that. It is pretty clear the press isn’t up to the job of stuffing lies, why not the party that suffers most because of them?
9/11 is plenty useful for the Republican party. Why do you think they keep bringing it up. The misinformation campaign is getting going now by the next presidential election people will believe 9/11 was the Democratic parties fault and it happened on the their watch. They don’t need to convince everyone of that. They just need to convince enough idiots to win the election.
Not to mention the shoe bomber was tried and sentenced in a civilian court. Now that Obama is in charge putting the underwear bomber in civilian courts is soft on terrorism. Bush doing it was hard on terrorism. The shoe bomber will be in jail a long time.
I don’t think that’s quite right. What I figure is that these people simply have so little concern for truth that these embarrassing mistakes happen. Generally, they can score points on whatever show, and ignore the blogosphere actually fact-checking them. Sometimes, though, they fuck up and say something that’s obviously incorrect even to people who aren’t paying attention.
So, basically, Rudy Giuliani forgets about 9/11 because “no terrorist attacks on Bush’s watch” is a good talking point, and he’s so used to being completely full of shit that he doesn’t even notice the glaring differences between his assertions and reality anymore. If he had only mentioned “after 9/11”, he’d be fine. Not actually accurate, but nothing he couldn’t get away with.