Torricelli on Giuliani

For your own sake, Mr. Torricelli, please consider that your credibility has a far better chance of avoiding impugnment if you restrict your commentary to reviews of dining establishments, as in the content of your previous posts.

George Ajjan
http://www.georgeajjan.com

associations with the mafia i guess are safer than with a korean supporter----but then we are from nj.torch keep up the good work i look forward to your comments.by the way your property looks great.you are a welcome neighbor. i wish however that you werent a democrat.

a friend from down the road

Is the only way to describe the BLOGS of the former senator who still seems scorched by his early exit from public life. It must be frustrating for a guy as smart as Torricelli watch Giuliani go for the brass ring. I'm sure he was convinced he would be the first serious Italian-American for president. He really should stop blogging.

....to see you Republicans squirming when confronted with the raw unvarnished truth.

Torricelli is no saint; but that doesn't diminish the obvious truth in his recent observations.

Try dealing with that truth....or, better yet (from a purely partisan perspective) go ahead and nominate this hypocritical bum. 

Giuliani's a loser.
 

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

John Edwards publicly stated that he read the full National Intelligence Estimate before voting to send troops to fight in Iraq.  Later that day, he was corrected by his staff to the effect that he did NOT actually read the full NIE assessment.  Edwards then admitted he did not read the full assessment.  Edwards' failure to take a couple of days to read the full NIE assessment (all 92 pages) translated into casting the most important vote of his Senate career on what amounted to the CliffsNotes version of crucial intelligence (a 5 page de-classified summary).  His vote helped send thousands of young men and women to their deaths in what has been widely acknowledged by both Dems and Republicans (myself included) as a tragic,senseless waste of life.  I can understand why Edwards purged his mind of the horrific truth and claimed to have read the full NIE.  The guilt associated with his dereliction of duty must be profound.  As Dem Senator Bob Graham stated on the floor of the Senate in October 2002: "Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," "We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States."  He further warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands."

The source of criticism notwithstanding, I think it's fair game to challenge Rudy on his association with Kerik as it would be any other candidate who has dealings with an unsavory character, not to mention those who suffer from convenient lapses of memory.   

To me, having someone potentially and knowingly lie under oath, as Guiliani seemingly did with the Kerik case, is rather different than a presidential candidate not admitting an embarrassing truth; Edwards later clarified that he meant he had read summaries of the NIE report. Sadly, every presidential candidate, Brownback, Clinton, Edwards, and McCain, who was in the senate at the time did not read the full report. Even Abu-Ghraib denier Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who served on the intelligence committee, didn't read the report. If one is basing their support of presidential candidates on who did read the report, however, then there is but one candidate who did: Biden. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

As someone who has protested the illegitimate war in Iraq since its inception, I view Edwards as one of us; he admits that his vote for the war was the worst mistake he has ever made and had a full editorial in the Washington Post in 2005 titled "Why I was Wrong" about the war in Iraq. That's a lot more than pro-war McCain, Guiliani, Brownback, and other Republican candidates have done, all of whom favor continued deployment of U.S. troops in the civil war in Iraq.

On Giuliani, besides the Kerik issue, which at the very least reveals a tremendous moment of poor judgment on Giuliani's part, there are issues concerning Giuliani's role as a lobbyist, his financial ties, and his possible poor judgment on 9/11 concerning making the twin towers main headquarters; NYC firefighters dislike Giuliani for his role in the latter and have protested him because of it.

It is a bipartisan source of shame that only 6 Senators even bothered to read the full NIE report before voting.  The important thing at this point is that, regardless of party affiliation, we work together to end this disgraceful episode.  I am not supporting Rudy for several reasons, among them some of those which you cited above.  Also, I recently read that Rudy was a no show for and eventually resigned from an Iraq study panel because he was busy giving speeches for upwards of $200,000 a pop.  If he can't be bothered to devote himself to such a critical task, then he doesn't deserve my consideration.  One question.  I am finding that Obama is gaining considerable support among evangelical Christians I know.  What do you think of his candidacy?  I find him somewhat refreshing in his attitude and respect him both intellectually and as a person.     

and should not be criticizing his betters especially with stupid statements like "supposedly lied during a civil deposition about a nonmaterial fact" Clinton admitted he lied so the supposedly is a bunch of crap. Also, it was not nonmaterial - it was found to be obstruction of justices for which Clinton got a slap on the wrist of surrendering his law license. I guess the torch is as poor a lawyer as he was a senator and congressman.                                                                                                                    Impeach Bush? Only if the reason is that he violated his oath by refusing to close the border with Mexico and stop the invasion occurring there. If that were the reason I would say yes!

It is disgusting that Bob Torricelli should even be considered to speak on any topic in the public sector, after his disgraceful and criminal service as senator.  But the nerve to speak about someone else's ethics issues is absolutely unbelievable.  PoliticsNJ should never have given you a podium.  You were a crook when you were a senator, and you still are one now.  Please disappear from NJ politics for good!!

Xenu: We found something that we both agree on, then, concerning the NIE reports. Sorry about some of the personal stuff on the other thread, btw.

Last night, CNN had a segment on the news that you spoke of, that is, that Guiliani opted out of the Iraq Study Group to take up some lucrative speaking deals abroad instead. This does undercut some of his so-called credibility on foreign policy. From a media analysis vantage, I can't help but notice that Guiliani and Edwards seem to have had the most negative "hits" done on them for some reason.  Certainly, having a presidential campaign's co-chair, as with the S.C. Guiliani co-chair Ravenel, indicted on cocaine charges does not help his cause, though.

Hence, if not Guiliani, who do sensible Republicans support for the nomination? Concerning Obama, I do find him refreshing in his (somewhat) outsider status and his commitment to taking non-PAC public funds; what I don't find so appealing is the lack of specificity, that is, specific policy statements, from Obama, though he has been doing more of that as of late, including at the Take Back America conference and the AFSCME forum.

Let me offer my apologies for my words and tone on that other thread.  The leaders I've most admired have always found common ground and worked to build on it, respecting each other's perspectives while opening their minds to differing opinions.  My political thinking has evolved drastically over the years to the point where I believe in many progressive ideals at which I formerly scoffed.  I differ from those on the left more in terms of the means by which to acheive these noble ends than the ends themselves. 

To be honest, I'm not thrilled with the current crop of GOP candidates.  McCain's time has come and gone.  His desire to escalate the war is unacceptable to me and I cannot see him articulating/executing a much needed vision for our nation.  For some reason I just can't warm up to Romney.  Maybe it's the whole mannequin vibe I get from him.  He has no core principles on which to assess his potential policy initiatives and seems to say whatever people want to hear at a particular moment.  Rudy aside, the others are basically comic relief and have no shot at winning the primary.  Fred Thompson would likely get my support if he runs, which seems more likely every day.  He's articulate, smart, and able to play well with others -- a quality utterly lost on our current chief executive.  He's also not a "my way or the highway" type of ideologue, which ends up pitting people against one another rather than building on our common interests and cultivating a sense of shared purpose.  Bloomberg could be an option.  He's independent, honest and creative.  I work in Manhattan and have viewed his work firsthand.  A bit too much of a "nanny" sometimes, but he would shake up the status quo in DC.  Also, as I stated previously, I find Obama's intellect, proven compassion and sense of mission attractive.     

I guess the current situation comes down to whether we have degrees of corruption. Are Torches TV's and Cars equal to hundreds of billions of dollars of military and security contracts that are being handed out? I really wish we had a honest man or woman in politics - having had some inside experience, I can say that perhaps....just maybe, 2-3% of politicians do not abuse their office. I could be wrong - it might be less. I remember one honest politician who ran for office and it quickly became known up and down the state that this person was a "white knight", which in politics is like saying someone is a traitor. It means danger to the other politicians because if the populace sees one honest person they might get the idea that more exist. Anyway, Corzine seems fairly honest - but I can't say I know him well. Mr. Torch...though, yeah I can understand how one might not listen to his ethics blogging. Now if he, as another here has mentioned, wants to come clean right here and tell us about all the mistakes that he has made - and that he has not done that in "x" years, then maybe he can redeem. After all, GW didn't have to answer about his drunk driving or drugs because it was "so long ago when he was young and stupid". Anyone can be redeemed - but you have to come clean first (and not just because you are caught)

What Torricelli got "busted" for was peanuts....like Capone on "tax evasion".

The problem is NOT so much with what "Torch" did that may have been overtly illicit or against ethics rules; but with what he and just about ALL extant Democrats AND Republicans are doing every day that is 100% LEGAL!!!

As long as legalized bribery is the "mothers milk" of politics; we are all going to be systematically screwed by the people/corporations that have bought and paid for BOTH parties!!!

If there is an issue that should unite ALL Americans it's getting the legalized bribery out of politics.

Pols who manage to leave office "in disgrace" are either too stupid (the guy in LA who had cash in his freezer) or too full of arrogance/hubris (the Torch) to simply steal "by the rules".

Hey, Bob, do you read this stuff? What say you?

;-)

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

if peanuts = rolex watches and`Armani Suits from a Donor, If peanuts means screwing up the CIA, If peanuts meants infringing the bill of rights, No wonder why so many kids are allergic to peanuts. It was Mr " no neck elitest" Armitage who ousted the cocktail girl  who rose on her back through the ranks of the CIA and NOT Mr Libby. So get real

The "Torch" sided with America's comunist enemies in Central Ameria and did damage to the CIA that may well have led to the success of the attacks on 9/11. He then presents some left wing libturd moonbat website with a bunch of lies about Giuliani. I a not supporting Rudy for the nomination as he is too liberal for me but he did a great job in NYC and the only ones sick of him were the NY Slimes and Sharpdung and his crowd of fools. This is shown by the fact that in 1997 the Democrats were smart enough to know he was unbeatable and put up very weak token opposition to his re-election. Lento is such a kool aid drinking fool Impeach Bush? Only if the reason is that he violated his oath by refusing to close the border with Mexico and stop the invasion occurring there. If that were the reason I would say yes!