"TR" <TR@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c5Kad.1919$gy1.1158@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/Read.aspx?ID=3883

Monday, October 11, 2004
Remarks by Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in Conference Call

Today

ARLINGTON, VA - Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani delivered the
following remarks in a Bush-Cheney '04 conference call today:

"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention,

I'

ve wondered exactly what John Kerry's approach would be to terrorism and

I'

ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the

focus,

and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism.

And

his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he

that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind

of

extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September

live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the

we

were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a
nuisance.

"I'm wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a

nuisance.

Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World

Trade

Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the

Munich

Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard?

the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s,

the

80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

"This is so different from the President's view and my own, which is in
those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of

we

were actually in the greatest danger. When you don't confront correctly

and

view realistically the danger that you face, that's when you're at the
greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to
confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in

the

good old days - I'm assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s --
they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his
inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he's not defining

correctly.

"As a former law enforcement person, he says 'I know we're never going

end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're

going

to reduce it.' This is not illegal gambling; this isn't prostitution.

Having

been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry

was, I don't understand his confusion. Even when he says 'organized

to

a level where it isn't not on the rise,' it was not the goal of the

Justice

Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the

Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level

of

organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one
union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is

frightening.

How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent
people that are killed, that we're going to tolerate a certain

[level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then

stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it

not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core

John Kerry's thinking. This does create some consistency in his

"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left

abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the
Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at
every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy
communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian

Gulf

War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry's global

test

is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone's global test. If

were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power,

but

he'd still be controlling Kuwait.

"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993,

I

guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have
thought that because that's why he proposed seriously reducing our
intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really

to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think

that

rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John
Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law
enforcement problems, and that the best we're ever going to be able to

is

reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising

with

it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?

"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance

President Bush made - significant advance that he made in the Bush

Doctrine

on September 20, 2001, when he said we're going to face up to terrorism

and

we're going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There's no
reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there's no

reason

to tolerate organized crime.

"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties
together a lot of things that we've talked about. Even this notion that

the

Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were

that he doesn't understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it's

just

a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He

does

and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that

really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as

great

as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."

It's looking more and more Guilani was complicit in 9/11.

It's looking more and more Guilani was complicit in 9/11.