Rudy Answers The Question About 9/11 And Robertson
Finally! Rudy Giuliani has been asked to expain his acceptance of an endorsement from Pat Robertson, despite Robertson's agreement that America "deserved" to be attacked on 9/11. The State of South Carolina has his answer:
Giuliani defended Robertson’s past controversies, including statements after the Sept. 11 attacks that God was “lifting his protection” because the U.S. was allowing abortion and removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from public schools.“I think the comments he explained a long time ago,” Giuliani said. “I’ve had to explain lots of comments of mine.”
We'll bring you more on Robertson's "explanation" soon. For now, suffice it to say that Robertson's press release making similar claims is still on his Website -- without any disclaimer or repudiation. And Robertson actually said something similar two years ago -- but more on this in a bit.
Comments (14)
Jake D wrote on November 8, 2007 11:31 AM:Fine by me -- as a Christian Conservative, it's not even a close call -- I will vote for Rudy in a heart beat over Hillary. Still not sure what all the controversy is supposed to be.
Michael wrote on November 8, 2007 11:35 AM:Wow, that sounds just like a clinton response. The questions already been answered thousands of times, when it really hasn't. Just keep the lies flowing. You go Mr. 9/11.
Jake D wrote on November 8, 2007 11:41 AM:As I recall, it WAS explained: Falwell issued a statement apologizing for those remarks. At the same time, however, he maintained that his remarks were misinterpreted by a "secular media and audience." Pat Robertson, who on the original program expressed his agreement with Falwell, issued a news release in which he called Falwell's remarks "totally inappropriate." What else needs to be said?
glennpdx wrote on November 8, 2007 11:50 AM:What else needs to be said? Well, Pat Robertson is a world-class whackjob and Rudy is thrilled to welcome him to his little circle of crackpots. Nuff said, indeed...
D wrote on November 8, 2007 11:52 AM:Jake D - I'm curious as to why "it's not even a close call" to vote for Giuliani over Clinton "as a Christian Conservative"?
And I think the controversy is that Falwell (and Robertson) felt compelled at the time to exlain actions of the murderers on 9/11 as the fault of sin happening inside the US, instead of the willfull actions of the terrorists. When Ron Paul recently tried to point out at a Republican debate that US foreign policy might provide a partial explanation for why the 9/11 terrorists committed those murders, Giuliani acted as if placing any blame on a cause outside the murderous terrorists themselve was a crazy idea.
Legalize wrote on November 8, 2007 11:59 AM:Yes, because cynical hate peddlers, wrapped in teh flad and whith teh Jebus on their lips couldn't possibly rethink their public statements and disavow what they clearly actually DO believe, given the body of their actions and statements over the years.
The controversy, dear obtuse Jake, is that Robertson has repeatedly campaigned against, and made public statements condemning the "librul" values held by Rudy. Yet, Robertson is endorsing Rudy - which pretty much confirms what most of us already know about the Christain right: it's not about principle, but rather merely about retaining your unpopular power.
You, Jake are Exhibit B, in that Robertson (Exhibit A) gave you, a *principled* Christian conservative permission to hypocritically set asided your *principles* and support Rudy, who does not share your views, solely in the name of defeating Hillary - who you rightfully believe will strip you of your evil influence on American politics and society.
Of course, "getting" the controversy is impossible for you and your ilk because "getting" it would force you to engage in a few moments of self-reflection.
Rusty Austin wrote on November 8, 2007 11:59 AM:"as a Christian Conservative"
Well that explains it I guess. Why are you posting on Salon?
Jake D wrote on November 8, 2007 12:20 PM:Christian Conservatives don't post on Salon?
LarryA wrote on November 8, 2007 12:40 PM:It's not a close call because for anyone anxiously awaiting armageddon, Rudy is the man you want to support.
Laurasoilybush wrote on November 8, 2007 12:49 PM:Who cares about 'rudy' barrels of crude going for a benji a pop !!!!
Flood of Flu Vaccine still available... look for pharma to tell media to scare us, flu epidemic is near !!!!
jeffgee wrote on November 8, 2007 12:56 PM:For the GOP it really boils down to Who Can Beat Hillary.
Nothing else matters. To Republican bulls, she's the red cape. They want to run against her.
If things go as they seem to be going, it'll be between Rudy and Hillary, and many people have strong negative gut feelings about her and don't pay attention to all of Rudy's, ahem, inconsistencies, also known as outright lies.
As if the future weren't scary enough.
Wow. I'm no Christian conservative. Not conservative. I'm not even Christian. But there's nothing wrong with being a Christian conservative.
Lots of Christian conservatives realize Pat Robertson is not very Christian and only really interested in conserving his own pay check.
And, Rudy is a nut job, but if you're going to get Christian conservatives to vote for someone who could make a good president, even if a bit progressive, you'll have to reach out to them rather than attack them.
strip opponents poker wrote on December 13, 2007 1:58 AM:help poker strip http://strippoker.spazioblog.it >poker strip star [url=http://strippoker.spazioblog.it]poker strip star[/url]
strip classic poker wrote on December 13, 2007 3:00 PM:poker strip trish http://strippoker.yourbb2.com >strip poker show [url=http://strippoker.yourbb2.com]strip poker show[/url]
