The "nineleven" tactic

[Marty McFly]

Joe Biden, in the democratic debate said: "Rudy Giuliany only says three words in a sentence, a noun a verb, and nineleven"

Joe Biden is not the first to say something like this. In fact, I believe he just repeated what the liberal media has been trying so hard to establish for ages. In other words, This is an 'old joke'

where are these jokes coming from? what are they trying to accomplish? they are not even true! Giuliani talks least about septebmer 11 compared to the other candidates, he hardly ever mentions it, and definately not the way THEY make it sound... just listen to the republican GOP debates, you'll see for yourself.

Maybe it's because they are afraid that he already got so much attention for being the leader during those terrible attacks? so they are trying to undermine it by making it sound like it's the only reason people might vote for him - forget his years as attorny general when he got the mafia. forget the city he cleaned for 8 years. forget the tax cuts and tax breaks and all the money he saved NewYorkers. all he ever did was get photographed near the WTC. so he is not qualified for presidency.

but is this tactic fair? can they make jokes about such a terrible tragety - and get away with it? and is it fair of them to laugh about a man who lost so many loved ones in those horrific attacks? why isn't anyone saying anything? It's painful for ME to hear these jokes, and I didn't even lose friends in the towers, and I didn't even work hard to clean the city. What must Rudy Giuliani feel when he hears jokes about the most painful experience of his life - having worked his entire life to clean the city, first from mafia crime as an attorny, then as Mayor - and having lost close friends he's grown up with?

I wish the democrats find a better way to fight in their campaign. It breaks my heart to see what they are resorting to now.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Marty McFly

[cilphex]

I think this is the impression a lot of people have of Rudy Giuliani.

It's not entirely without warrant. When you stage gimmick phone calls from your wife, later explaining it's somehow due to 9/11, when a fund raiser charging $9.11 as an entrance fee is started for you, and when you claim to have spent just as much time at Ground Zero as the firefighters have when you clearly have not, claiming to be "one of them," people rightly start to believe that you're exploiting the situation for political gain. This is a little funny, too.

Edited November 7, 2007 by cilphex

[Marty McFly]

I think this is the impression a lot of people have of Rudy Giuliani.

It's not entirely without warrant. When you stage gimmick phone calls from your wife, later explaining it's somehow due to 9/11, when a fund raiser charging $9.11 as an entrance fee is started for you, and when you claim to have spent just as much time at Ground Zero as the firefighters have when you clearly have not, claiming to be "one of them," people rightly start to believe that you're exploiting the situation for political gain. This is a little funny, too.

about that weird fund raiser -OMG, I don't know WHAT they were thinking! *roll eyes* but you can hardly blame Giuliani for every idiot who happens to support him.

now, about Wikipedia. I have a very strange feeling about that "encyclopedia" and its' writers. it's not the first time they posted "facts" that are just a repeat of the leftist propaganda. I remember the headllines about him saying that he spent alot of time in ground zero. he did, actually. he might have been there less than some, but the fact is, he has been there alot as far as I remember. (and I don't mean the time spent with diplomats and officials. what about the time spent there just to supervise, and be there? THIs was not documented, THIS was not counted in the "29 hours")

about that you tube family guy thing, yes I've seen it before. this is the impression that the democrats woulod LIKE you to have of him. if you listen only to their propaganda, of course. but if you'd take your time to listen to Mr Giuliani himself you'll see that it's not true.

here is a link to Mayor Giuliani's press conference in december of 1999. if you click on December 28, 1999 view the mayor's press conference and go to 20:12 where the press asks the mayor about new years celebratipons in seattle trhat were cancelled due to threat from terrorists watch what he has to say about it. and again in 23:38 I think, the question rises again about security against terrorism attacks. so the same media that laughs at him now is that same media that kept initiating the disccussions about terrorist threats. AND THIS WAS before 2001. TWO YEARS before!!

here is the link http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/blueroom1999.html

and er- Phone calls from his wite? due to 9/11? what are you talking about?

Edited November 7, 2007 by Marty McFly

[cilphex]

The fact that the fund raiser was not started by the Giuliani campaign is a moot point. You asked why people perceive him to be exploiting 9/11, and the facts that the fund raiser was held and that it was for him make it a link. Whether that is unfortunate or not for Giuliani is another matter. It is much how like once a person is accused of rape, even if they are innocent, people hate them for it.

Of course you're right in that Giuliani probably spent a good deal of time at Ground Zero in the few days directly following the attacks. What you seem to be misunderstanding is the anger over his statements that his experience was akin to that of the firefighters, and that he spent as much time as them at Ground Zero between the event and when he made the statement. The link I provided (now defunct, the page has been dismembered) lead to a summary and various sources, not something hodge-podged together by "Wikipedia writers." Compared to the people that slaved in the rubble, who he was comparing himself to, he was virtually kept in a clean bubble.

One could say that much of the time he did spend at Ground Zero, he did because his emergency command center was destroyed in the attack, having been placed in building 7 instead of somewhere in Brooklyn, where it was advised to him to be placed.

I can't open the files you linked to for Giuliani's press conferences, but you seem to be helping my point rather than yours. The press asking Giuliani repetitive questions about terrorism eight years ago is one thing. Asking him various questions about his stances on issues during his bid for the presidency, only to have him answer by explaining half of them via 9/11 is quite another.

The phone calls I'm talking about are explained in the link I provided.

Quite honestly, Rudy Giuliani strikes me as the biggest phony in the entire race.

Edited November 7, 2007 by cilphex

[Marty McFly]

Well, it's obvious that you REALLY dislike Mayor Giuliani, and that I REALLY like him. Hmm, this should make a good debate. I just wish you'd stop listening to the media and start listening to him.

I hear many things against Hillary, but I understand that the republicans are just talking dirty about her because they don't like her. I disagree with her philosophy, but I am sure she is a nice lady, and that all those alligations (she got money from a drug dealer etc) is just stupid and petty way for conservatives to smear her. I listen to her, instead of listening to others who talk about her.

for example, he did not connect his phone call to 9/11. people keep forgetting that he is human and has the same fears we all have. he was asked, and he answered. to tell you the truth, everytime I walk the street and hear a plane I cringe. many times I actually bend down, put my arms over my head and look up. this is not a rational reaction. it's just spontanious. my heart beats faster, my palms get sweaty, I know it's stupid, but I just can't help it. no one accuses me of using 9/11 when I mention it. why? because I am not running for anything. it's just my human side, the side that developes instincs because of a troumatic experience I had. I am surprised that he is not even more mentally damaged from this traumatic event, but then, maybe he is. and he is afraid to say anything because he will be labeled "riding on nineleven"

Now, if you are angry that many people like him and respect him BECAUSE of the events of 9/11, well, ask any New yorker - why do you like GIuliani? why did you vote for him twice? why did you vote for Bloomberg ONLY because Giuliani told you to? they will say: he turned the city around. it's simple. nothing to do with 9/11. I remember Prospect Park befor Giuliani. I remember New Utricht Ave. befor Giuliani. I remember the subways, times square, Harlem etc. before giuliani. he has done ALOT for the city, and his actions on 9/11 just made us have even more respect for him. that's just life. people respect a leader - that's what he is.

you want to sit on the little comments he makes about his personal fears for his wife? or sit on some insensitive donors who I'm sure made RudyGiuliani feel VERY uncomfortable with their stupid antics? Or listen to the UNION of the firefighters who happen to hate any republican anyway (my brother works for FDNY and he is voting for giuliani - individual firefighters DON't hate giuliani, only the union board top members)

what do you mean the link didn't work? I spent at least 2 hours looking for it, and then listening to the boring coversation about holliday shopping and tax cuts and welfare so I could point you to exactly the place where they ask him about terrorism! I remembered the Y2K hype and terrorism threats so I looked for december archives where they might be talking about it and found it. I wish I can take only part of the video and post it on you-tube. it would be such a laugh to hear giuliani keep repeating to the press, "there is NO THREAT directed at New York City."

Edited November 8, 2007 by Marty McFly

[Marty McFly]

One could say that much of the time he did spend at Ground Zero, he did because his emergency command center was destroyed in the attack, having been placed in building 7 instead of somewhere in Brooklyn, where it was advised to him to be placed.

You see how desperate his opponents are getting? who's idea was it to create a command center in case of emergency? people made fun of him for worrying so much about terrorism, and that he even wanted to open a comand center in the first place. he wanted the command center close to the twin towers because he knew they were a target (1993 bombing ring a bell?) how was he to know they'd actually succeed in throwing down all those buildings? NO ONE thoght about airplanes. hind sight is always 20/20, you know.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Marty McFly

[cilphex]

I hear many things against Hillary, but I understand that the republicans are just talking dirty about her because they don't like her.

This is not objective. You aren't even following the criticisms of and accusations against the people who you don't want to be president. It seems like an excuse for self-justifying ignoring similar criticism from the other side against your candidate of choice.

People point something out about Rudy Giuliani that you don't like. "But, I never accused Hillary like that!" you shout in response. Sorry, that's not how the world works. Accepting flaws in other people does not remove them from the person you don't wish to see them in.

Of course, as you said, much of your opinion should be based on listening to the candidate him or herself. But your entire opinion of a candidate should not be based solely on what comes from their mouth. Candidates are not going to tell you their vices during a bid for the Whitehouse unless they feel they're insignificant enough for you to overlook.

This said, it is entirely possible that many of the things the media goes on about are unimportant, overblown, or false. But you can't and shouldn't bank on this (you can't and shouldn't bank on it being true or important, either), else you risk forming opinions based on unresearched, possibly false grounds. These are presidential candidates. Their faults should be scrutinized, not downplayed. It is up to you to determine what information is valid and what information isn't.

I sincerely hope that you're exaggerating the effects of what sounds like at least a mild form of post traumatic stress disorder. If that is real, that is sad. Sad and incredibly unfortunate, because I don't see how a psychological issue that deep could allow you to regard the situation without bias. If I were to surmise, I would say it is very possible that this trauma has created some sort of psychological dependence on who you perceive to be the saving grace of that day.

Of course no one accuses you of "using" 9/11 because for one, you probably don't mention it. If you do, it's probably only in regards to this particular action. Even if you suffer from a slew of spontaneous actions and emotions that can be properly diagnosed as stress from 9/11, no one is likely to accuse you of exploiting it. If you keep going back to something repeatedly, but have nothing to gain from doing so, why would anyone make that accusation? Giuliani has much to gain by persistently mentioning it in the form of sympathy and a reminder of his supposed heroism. It is a ridiculous comparison.

Even if he was incredibly shook by the situation, he seems intelligent enough to know that all of the issues are important in themselves and do not all demand a position derived through or influenced somehow by 9/11.

Further, it is my opinion that any candidate a rational person would consider for the presidency would want them, also, to be as rational as possible. The candidate should have an inveterate, healthy strength of mind. Clearly, suffering from immense stress from an event to the extent that it's cause affects your opinions on almost everything is a pretty sincere obstacle to this. So your statement that, hell, who knows, he may be more "mentally damaged" than we know and is hiding it, is not a very endearing thought. (I do not think this is the case).

I am not angry at Giuliani because he gained respect in the aftermath of 9/11. If he earned it, he earned it. Exploiting that is a different matter.

With your second post you still seem to be arguing more for me than yourself. What kind of idiocy does it take to place an emergency command center, against all recommendations, right next to a well-known, highly rated, and already once attacked terrorist target? How can you possibly view that decision as morally commendable?

he wanted the command center close to the twin towers because he knew they were a target (1993 bombing ring a bell?)

Think about that. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at it.

Also, the command center issue is sincerely not a matter of Giuliani's "opponents." That you see it that way is a testament to your bias. This is an issue that is and has been raised by lots of regular people of all political backgrounds, many of whom were directly affected by the attacks and do not regard it in any particular political context.

I think this is pretty far off topic, but...

NO ONE thoght about airplanes.

This is absolutely false. In addition to that link, it is pretty well known that there were also several war games being enacted across the US that day which used the very simulation of planes being used as weapons. In fact, it has been cited as a cause for the poor response to the real attacks, because the procedures used to carry them out impeded the standard emergency response measures which would have been used for the real situation. Anyway,

I am not trying to "sit on" anything. I have been trying to answer your original question. The events I cited are only some of the reasons for the perception, which may be true or false, that Giuliani actively exploits 9/11. The media that reports it is obviously going to be liberal, but that doesn't make it false. I don't really see how there's much of a debate here. There's already a thread titled "Rudy Giuliani" for everything else regarding the man himself.

Edited November 9, 2007 by cilphex

[Marty McFly]

People point something out about Rudy Giuliani that you don't like. "But, I never accused Hillary like that!" you shout in response. Sorry, that's not how the world works. Accepting flaws in other people does not remove them from the person you don't wish to see them in.

that is not what I said. I do accuse Hillary of being a socialist and a host of other things SHE does and says. There is a BIG difference between taking everything you hear about a candidate you hate with a grain of salt and "not accusing" big difference. you seem to take everything said about giuliani as fact, and that is simply wrong.

Of course, as you said, much of your opinion should be based on listening to the candidate him or herself. But your entire opinion of a candidate should not be based solely on what comes from their mouth. Candidates are not going to tell you their vices during a bid for the Whitehouse unless they feel they're insignificant enough for you to overlook.

Of course I don't ONLY listen to what comes out of a candidate's mouth, otherwise I'd vote for Bob Grant. I look at their history. the ARCHIVED history of all their accomplishments, and you bet Giuliani accomplished ALOT. not everyone liked him for that, but if you are someone who actually stands up and does something, chances are youll be hated by someone or other.

This said, it is entirely possible that many of the things the media goes on about are unimportant, overblown, or false. But you can't and shouldn't bank on this (you can't and shouldn't bank on it being true or important, either), else you risk forming opinions based on unresearched, possibly false grounds. These are presidential candidates. Their faults should be scrutinized, not downplayed. It is up to you to determine what information is valid and what information isn't.

speak for yourself. you're the one who believes that everything he's asked about issues he answers "nineleven"

I determine the validity of the informmation according to the history that I clearly remember.

I sincerely hope that you're exaggerating the effects of what sounds like at least a mild form of post traumatic stress disorder. If that is real, that is sad. Sad and incredibly unfortunate, because I don't see how a psychological issue that deep could allow you to regard the situation without bias. If I were to surmise, I would say it is very possible that this trauma has created some sort of psychological dependence on who you perceive to be the saving grace of that day.

Of course no one accuses you of "using" 9/11 because for one, you probably don't mention it. If you do, it's probably only in regards to this particular action. Even if you suffer from a slew of spontaneous actions and emotions that can be properly diagnosed as stress from 9/11, no one is likely to accuse you of exploiting it. If you keep going back to something repeatedly, but have nothing to gain from doing so, why would anyone make that accusation? Giuliani has much to gain by persistently mentioning it in the form of sympathy and a reminder of his supposed heroism. It is a ridiculous comparison.

Even if he was incredibly shook by the situation, he seems intelligent enough to know that all of the issues are important in themselves and do not all demand a position derived through or influenced somehow by 9/11.

whoa. OK, no, I do not think I have a psychological dependence. that's not fair. and no, I don't think I have a post troumatic stress disorder, because this instinct does not stop me from stepping outside or living my life. not everything has to be connected to phsychology. It will go away with time.

Giuliani has absolutely nothing to gain - only to lose by using 9/11 so I really don't think his wanting to hear his wife before she boards a plane is so rediculously um, simpathy seeking it's life. and being troumatized has nothing to do with intelligence.

and again, IF you would take your time to LISTEN to him, you'll see for yourself that he addresses issues for themselves, and not everything in connection to 9/11 which is what the media - that you listen to without a grain of salt- wants you to believe.

Further, it is my opinion that any candidate a rational person would consider for the presidency would want them, also, to be as rational as possible. The candidate should have an inveterate, healthy strength of mind. Clearly, suffering from immense stress from an event to the extent that it's cause affects your opinions on almost everything is a pretty sincere obstacle to this. So your statement that, hell, who knows, he may be more "mentally damaged" than we know and is hiding it, is not a very endearing thought. (I do not think this is the case).

Oh lord! again, you believe that everything he ever talks about when addressed with issues is "nineleven". and again, having lived through a troumatic event and developing minor fears from it has nothing to do with rationalism or intelligence. it just gets you into the habbit of, say, calling your wife before you board a plane.

I am not angry at Giuliani because he gained respect in the aftermath of 9/11. If he earned it, he earned it. Exploiting that is a different matter.

*sigh* I don't see where he is exploiting it.

With your second post you still seem to be arguing more for me than yourself. What kind of idiocy does it take to place an emergency command center, against all recommendations, right next to a well-known, highly rated, and already once attacked terrorist target? How can you possibly view that decision as morally commendable?

because when there is an emergency, you want to be RIGHT THERE so you could manage it. you don't want to be stuck in Brooklyn you want to be there and take care of business.

Think about that. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at it.

Also, the command center issue is sincerely not a matter of Giuliani's "opponents." That you see it that way is a testament to your bias. This is an issue that is and has been raised by lots of regular people of all political backgrounds, many of whom were directly affected by the attacks and do not regard it in any particular political context.

but as I explained before, you want to be near the desaster so you can better manage it.

I think this is pretty far off topic, but...

This is absolutely false. In addition to that link, it is pretty well known that there were also several war games being enacted across the US that day which used the very simulation of planes being used as weapons. In fact, it has been cited as a cause for the poor response to the real attacks, because the procedures used to carry them out impeded the standard emergency response measures which would have been used for the real situation. Anyway,

I am not trying to "sit on" anything. I have been trying to answer your original question. The events I cited are only some of the reasons for the perception, which may be true or false, that Giuliani actively exploits 9/11. The media that reports it is obviously going to be liberal, but that doesn't make it false. I don't really see how there's much of a debate here. There's already a thread titled "Rudy Giuliani" for everything else regarding the man himself.

the debate is basically that you believe according to the things you posted before that the left is correct when using the nineleven tactic for discrediting giuliani. I showed you how most of these links are just blown out of preportion, or simply false (especially the FUNNY ones that was what I complained about in the first place) I would really like you to listen to at least one gop debate, and then tell me that he answers /11 to everything. you'll see for yourself that it's not true.