Firefighters union assails Giuliani By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
The nation's largest firefighters union has accused Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, of committing "egregious acts" against firefighters who died in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
In a letter to its members Friday, the International Association of Fire Fighters, excoriated Giuliani for his November 2001 decision to cut back the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades.
The 280,000-member union accused him of carelessly expediting the cleanup process with a "scoop-and-dump" operation after the recovery of millions of dollars in gold, silver and other assets from the Bank of Nova Scotia that had been buried.
Giuliani's campaign insisted that he respects and supports first responders.
The former mayor and the union have feuded for years over his policies in the aftermath of the attacks, but the firefighters' latest criticism comes as several polls show Giuliani ahead by wide margins in the GOP nomination race.
Seeking to blunt the impact of the accusations, his campaign announced the support of nearly 100 South Carolina firefighters and countered with its own letter from Lee Ielpi, a retired New York firefighter.
"There is no one who respects firefighters and first responders more than Rudy Giuliani," Ielpi wrote. "Firefighters have no greater friend and supporter."
The union's latest broadside initially was included in a scathing letter dated Feb. 28. Union officials say that letter was drafted as leaders were weighing whether to invite Giuliani to a presidential candidate forum but never was distributed to members because the union ultimately invited Giuliani. Giuliani, however, declined the invitation to next week's forum, citing scheduling conflicts.
This is one of the places they spoke about having anti-fascist rallys in the 30's in Crown Heights Brooklyn at the intersection of Utica Ave. & Eastern Parkway.
"Who remembers Dubrow's on Eastern Parkway and Utica Ave...Corned Beef, Pastrami, Chopped Liver, Chopped Herring..great bread and all the seltzer you could drink...I got heartburn just writing about this "delicious" place."
... Over 450 conscientious objectors were imprisoned as a result of this legislation including Rose Pastor Stokes who was sentenced to ten years in prison for saying, in a letter to the Kansas City Star, that "no government which is for the profiteers can also be for the people, and I am for the people while the government is for the profiteers." Soon afterwards Kate Richards O'Hare was sentenced to five years for making an anti-war speech in North Dakota. ...
March 09, 2007 They're quite mad, you know The Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq war reminds me of flying-ace Snoopy, with goggles down and steely determination, though of course his victories are all in his head. Or maybe a Vegas high-roller, who, after an unbroken four-year losing streak, decides to bet what little is left in one last gamble.
The first metaphor is that of delusion; the second, that of pathetic desperation. Still, either is superior to the administration in sanity or wisdom, since neither is playing with other people's lives. In doing the latter, one enters the decidedly unmetaphorical realm of criminal recklessness -- which some men in uniform, perhaps looking for civilian brownie points, now want to broaden.
"The day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008," reported the NYT yesterday, and this morning reports that his boss, too, now "assert[s] a need for open-endedness in the American commitment."
And here's a quotable quote to clarify things: "The White House has never said exactly how long it intends the troop buildup to last, but military officials say the increased American force level will begin declining in August unless additional units are sent."
So we'll have fewer there, unless we send more. That's the kind of clear thinking that promotions are made of. If only I had signed up for a military career years ago: I could have sat and thunk profound thoughts like that all day long, in the secure pursuit of a dynamite pension.
Once upon a time, our offshore prison at Guantanamo was the sort of place where even an American National Guardsman, only pretending to be a recalcitrant prisoner "extracted" from a cell for training purposes, could be beaten almost senseless. This actually happened to 35 year-old "model soldier" Sean Baker, who had been in Gulf War I and signed on again immediately after the World Trade Center went down. His unit was assigned to Guantanamo and he volunteered to be just such a "prisoner," donning the requisite orange uniform on January 24, 2003. As a result of his "extraction" and brutal beating, he was left experiencing regular epileptic-style seizures ten to twelve times a day. (And remember the Immediate Reaction Force team of MPs that seized him, on finally realizing that he wasn't a genuine prisoner, broke off their assault before finishing the job.)
Update: CNN says Tom DeLay not joining network. Via Hunter, a network spokesperson tells MediaBistro that criminally-indicted ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is not joining CNN.
I tentavily brought up the Fresh Kills landfill thing, and she was like, that's a lie!!! From the internets, o/course
Guilliani is like an old shcool mafia type.
holy crap, endorsed by God?
-conbo
Wow.
Sad.
But, I know ... my mother does not go down the god track, but nonetheless the more I bring things up the more stubborn she is about being pro-Republican.
I'm better off not bringing it up at all.
She used to be intelligent. And I told her that. I said, "what happened?" That got her. She didn't know what to say, because she knew I was right. My sister was like ... "good one."
Update: CNN says Tom DeLay not joining network. Via Hunter, a network spokesperson tells MediaBistro that criminally-indicted ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is not joining CNN.
LINK
March 9, 2007 8:27 PM
*****
What get's me is ... why were they even considering it?
They are so stupid. They don't even realize how many people DON'T watch because of what they have done with their programming.
Think about it from a marketing perspective:
Why would you go after the smaller demographic that you KNOW is pro Bush (by any measure very very small), and who is statistically not influential nor particularly interested in news, nor economically affluent?
You want to attract the segment of the population that will buy stuff your advertisers hawk.
I think their marketing people have their heads up their asses ... blinded by the (lack) of light!
And don't they believe in pay back and karma? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that when you do the wrong thing you will get your just deserts [see crank?! I spelled it correctly].
//She used to be intelligent. And I told her that. I said, "what happened?" That got her. She didn't know what to say, because she knew I was right. My sister was like ... "good one."//
You have guts! I can't do that. My Mom would hang up on me...
I was telling my Mom about what I have been doing the past couple of days...i have been chained to the internet writing. I just told her how happy I was that the DLC decided not to allow FOX to host the debates. We can talk about politics as long as I paraphrase it this way 'well you know this is how democrats think...they think FOX is biased against them, and I am dumb democrat so you know' i have to discredit myself. you know what. I am not doing anyone any favors by pretending that what I think COULD be wrong.
i know that FOX is biased.
EVERYONE knows that, unless they are in the FOX cult
I do hate that channel, I do
My Mom never even watched TV before that channel came around. Really. She was still ultra conservative- but she read books, and actually was really into Stephen Hawking and his time theories.
What Sam said on the countdown appearance is true...FOX appeals to this certain brand of fantasy land world view. Everything has a happy ending, every conservative a virgin born of God...My Mom and many in my family have that world view...also the big fear of outsiders..you know like Canada...hahaha
I hate FOX more then I hate the war, or anything else.
I hate FOX more then I hate the war, or anything else.
They have destroyed families
March 9, 2007 9:38 PM
***
Hey conbo...
me too.
It is more of an Archie Bunker mentality - a la 2007...
It is the appeal that you don't have to be accountable for all your hate. That you can blame your miserable life on others and no one will ever look at you funny.
That's the fantasy.
That everyone else is wrong, and you are right, and 'wow' your prize is you get to be miserable and not do anything about it, but blame others.
That's what's so ironic. The Bill O'Lielly's of the world judge 'the other side' as being people who actually take responsibility for their own actions, and are less likely to blame others!
Wow. What a terrible thing.
Of course, he phrases it to make it sound like we're so 'fucked up' for actually trying to make the world a better place and take responsibility for ourselves.
I just don't talk about news or current events with anyone else.
-conbo
March 9, 2007 9:55 PM
Yeah. Even though I am fortunate to live in NYC which means that it is rarer to run into someone who has a conservative view... I still have people that I do business with, for instance, where ... the devil is in the details ... and you have to be careful... suss them out before you get into it...
//the devil is in the details ... and you have to be careful... suss them out before you get into it...//
yep.
I was talking to son's sitter, who is a very nice woman, very compassionate, and I really consider her to be a friend. I was telling her that I blog a lot, and she said she didn't follow politics at all and asked me what the difference was between dems and repubs, I laughed and said not a lot.
Then, she got this horrible look on her face and said "Dems are the ones who kill babies! No way, I could never vote for that."
I changed the subject.
The thing is I really like her she is a good person, Otherwise she would not watch my son.
And she's not stupid either. Why is everyone in the dark in this country about their own government and how it runs?
The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency Mahmood Mamdani
The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make?
The most powerful mobilisation in New York City is in relation to Darfur, not Iraq. One would expect the reverse, for no other reason than that most New Yorkers are American citizens and so should feel directly responsible for the violence in occupied Iraq. But Iraq is a messy place in the American imagination, a place with messy politics. Americans worry about what their government should do in Iraq. Should it withdraw? What would happen if it did? In contrast, there is nothing messy about Darfur. It is a place without history and without politics; simply a site where perpetrators clearly identifiable as ‘Arabs’ confront victims clearly identifiable as ‘Africans’.
A full-page advertisement has appeared several times a week in the New York Times calling for intervention in Darfur now. It wants the intervening forces to be placed under ‘a chain of command allowing necessary and timely military action without approval from distant political or civilian personnel’. That intervention in Darfur should not be subject to ‘political or civilian’ considerations and that the intervening forces should have the right to shoot – to kill – without permission from distant places: these are said to be ‘humanitarian’ demands. In the same vein, a New Republic editorial on Darfur has called for ‘force as a first-resort response’. What makes the situation even more puzzling is that some of those who are calling for an end to intervention in Iraq are demanding an intervention in Darfur; as the slogan goes, ‘Out of Iraq and into Darfur.’
What would happen if we thought of Darfur as we do of Iraq, as a place with a history and politics – a messy politics of insurgency and counter-insurgency? Why should an intervention in Darfur not turn out to be a trigger that escalates rather than reduces the level of violence as intervention in Iraq has done? Why might it not create the actual possibility of genocide, not just rhetorically but in reality? Morally, there is no doubt about the horrific nature of the violence against civilians in Darfur. The ambiguity lies in the politics of the violence, whose sources include both a state-connected counter-insurgency and an organised insurgency, very much like the violence in Iraq.
429 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 429 of 429not going to argue religion
plenty of people of faith do not buy into conservative
propaganda and incendentally vice versa
-conbo
Firefighters union assails Giuliani By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 39 minutes ago
The nation's largest firefighters union has accused Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, of committing "egregious acts" against firefighters who died in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
In a letter to its members Friday, the International Association of Fire Fighters, excoriated Giuliani for his November 2001 decision to cut back the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades.
The 280,000-member union accused him of carelessly expediting the cleanup process with a "scoop-and-dump" operation after the recovery of millions of dollars in gold, silver and other assets from the Bank of Nova Scotia that had been buried.
Giuliani's campaign insisted that he respects and supports first responders.
The former mayor and the union have feuded for years over his policies in the aftermath of the attacks, but the firefighters' latest criticism comes as several polls show Giuliani ahead by wide margins in the GOP nomination race.
Seeking to blunt the impact of the accusations, his campaign announced the support of nearly 100 South Carolina firefighters and countered with its own letter from Lee Ielpi, a retired New York firefighter.
"There is no one who respects firefighters and first responders more than Rudy Giuliani," Ielpi wrote. "Firefighters have no greater friend and supporter."
The union's latest broadside initially was included in a scathing letter dated Feb. 28. Union officials say that letter was drafted as leaders were weighing whether to invite Giuliani to a presidential candidate forum but never was distributed to members because the union ultimately invited Giuliani. Giuliani, however, declined the invitation to next week's forum, citing scheduling conflicts.
LINK
This is one of the places they spoke about having anti-fascist rallys in the 30's in Crown Heights Brooklyn at the intersection of Utica Ave. & Eastern Parkway.
Durbrow's Cafeteria, Eastern Parkway off Utica Avenue, 1945
Crown Heights
It just dawned on me why they held
their meetings there:
Dubrows
Walter starts things off by writing:
"Who remembers Dubrow's on Eastern Parkway and Utica Ave...Corned Beef, Pastrami, Chopped Liver, Chopped Herring..great bread and all the seltzer you could drink...I got heartburn just writing about this "delicious" place."
The Espionage Act was passed by Congress in 1917 after the United States entered the First World War.
...
Over 450 conscientious objectors were imprisoned as a result of this legislation including Rose Pastor Stokes who was sentenced to ten years in prison for saying, in a letter to the Kansas City Star, that "no government which is for the profiteers can also be for the people, and I am for the people while the government is for the profiteers." Soon afterwards Kate Richards O'Hare was sentenced to five years for making an anti-war speech in North Dakota.
...
"NEWS CONSUMER" said...
Oops - That was me.
If you can buy into the "guy in the sky", God put his hand on Guillianni and he will be the president is easy. Way easy!
March 09, 2007
They're quite mad, you know
The Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq war reminds me of flying-ace Snoopy, with goggles down and steely determination, though of course his victories are all in his head. Or maybe a Vegas high-roller, who, after an unbroken four-year losing streak, decides to bet what little is left in one last gamble.
The first metaphor is that of delusion; the second, that of pathetic desperation. Still, either is superior to the administration in sanity or wisdom, since neither is playing with other people's lives. In doing the latter, one enters the decidedly unmetaphorical realm of criminal recklessness -- which some men in uniform, perhaps looking for civilian brownie points, now want to broaden.
"The day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008," reported the NYT yesterday, and this morning reports that his boss, too, now "assert[s] a need for open-endedness in the American commitment."
And here's a quotable quote to clarify things: "The White House has never said exactly how long it intends the troop buildup to last, but military officials say the increased American force level will begin declining in August unless additional units are sent."
So we'll have fewer there, unless we send more. That's the kind of clear thinking that promotions are made of. If only I had signed up for a military career years ago: I could have sat and thunk profound thoughts like that all day long, in the secure pursuit of a dynamite pension.
LINK
Tomgram: Karen Greenberg, Gitmo Decorum
Once upon a time, our offshore prison at Guantanamo was the sort of place where even an American National Guardsman, only pretending to be a recalcitrant prisoner "extracted" from a cell for training purposes, could be beaten almost senseless. This actually happened to 35 year-old "model soldier" Sean Baker, who had been in Gulf War I and signed on again immediately after the World Trade Center went down. His unit was assigned to Guantanamo and he volunteered to be just such a "prisoner," donning the requisite orange uniform on January 24, 2003. As a result of his "extraction" and brutal beating, he was left experiencing regular epileptic-style seizures ten to twelve times a day. (And remember the Immediate Reaction Force team of MPs that seized him, on finally realizing that he wasn't a genuine prisoner, broke off their assault before finishing the job.)
LINK
Velveeta fashion!
Alice said...
The Espionage Act was passed by Congress in 1917 after the United States entered the First World War.
March 9, 2007 7:43 PM
"NEWS CONSUMER" said...
Try not to get arrested.
The cats need you. :)
Update: CNN says Tom DeLay not joining network. Via Hunter, a network spokesperson tells MediaBistro that criminally-indicted ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is not joining CNN.
LINK
Good night all. Work tomorrow.
Later
1
Oh man, that sucks Toni..! It's better when you & me both have to work the weekend... :) I finally have two days off...*ah*...sleep well...xox
2
3
#3 sounds like faeries dancing...
*Whatever...like I even care about blogging alone anymore....*
:)
DON'T FORGET TO BOOGIE!!!
Are you having a laugh?
Why would God endorse Guilliani?
it's laughable
Do they put a halo around the man's head on FOX?
I tentavily brought up the Fresh Kills landfill thing,
and she was like, that's a lie!!! From the internets, o/course
Guilliani is like an old shcool mafia type.
holy crap, endorsed by God?
-conbo
Wow.
Sad.
But, I know ... my mother does not go down the god track, but nonetheless the more I bring things up the more stubborn she is about being pro-Republican.
I'm better off not bringing it up at all.
She used to be intelligent. And I told her that. I said, "what happened?" That got her. She didn't know what to say, because she knew I was right. My sister was like ... "good one."
toniD said...
Update: CNN says Tom DeLay not joining network. Via Hunter, a network spokesperson tells MediaBistro that criminally-indicted ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) is not joining CNN.
LINK
March 9, 2007 8:27 PM
*****
What get's me is ... why were they even considering it?
They are so stupid. They don't even realize how many people DON'T watch because of what they have done with their programming.
Think about it from a marketing perspective:
Why would you go after the smaller demographic that you KNOW is pro Bush (by any measure very very small), and who is statistically not influential nor particularly interested in news, nor economically affluent?
You want to attract the segment of the population that will buy stuff your advertisers hawk.
I think their marketing people have their heads up their asses ... blinded by the (lack) of light!
And don't they believe in pay back and karma? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that when you do the wrong thing you will get your just deserts [see crank?! I spelled it correctly].
//She used to be intelligent. And I told her that. I said, "what happened?" That got her. She didn't know what to say, because she knew I was right. My sister was like ... "good one."//
You have guts! I can't do that. My Mom would hang up on me...
I was telling my Mom about
what I have been doing the past couple of days...i have been chained to the internet writing. I just told her how happy I was that the DLC decided not to allow FOX to host the debates. We can talk about politics as long as I paraphrase it this way 'well you know this is how democrats think...they think FOX is biased against them, and I am dumb democrat so you know' i have to discredit myself. you know what. I am not doing anyone any favors by pretending that what I think COULD be wrong.
i know that FOX is biased.
EVERYONE knows that, unless they are in the FOX cult
I do hate that channel, I do
My Mom never even watched TV before that channel came around. Really. She was still ultra conservative- but she read books, and actually was really into Stephen Hawking and his time theories.
What Sam said on the countdown appearance is true...FOX appeals to this certain brand of fantasy land world view. Everything has a happy ending, every conservative a virgin born
of God...My Mom and many in my family have that world view...also the big fear of outsiders..you know like Canada...hahaha
I hate FOX more then I hate the war, or anything else.
They have destroyed families
thats a little dramatic
FOX will have to go back to being mainstreamed and this time of disinfo will go down the memory hole for it's viewers
It's just disgusting that they have gotten away with it for so long
My Mom also told me that Obama did drugs in college that he wrote a book about it. Really. I'm sure she saw that on FOX.
-conbo
I hate FOX more then I hate the war, or anything else.
They have destroyed families
March 9, 2007 9:38 PM
***
Hey conbo...
me too.
It is more of an Archie Bunker mentality - a la 2007...
It is the appeal that you don't have to be accountable for all your hate. That you can blame your miserable life on others and no one will ever look at you funny.
That's the fantasy.
That everyone else is wrong, and you are right, and 'wow' your prize is you get to be miserable and not do anything about it, but blame others.
That's what's so ironic. The Bill O'Lielly's of the world judge 'the other side' as being people who actually take responsibility for their own actions, and are less likely to blame others!
Wow. What a terrible thing.
Of course, he phrases it to make it sound like we're so 'fucked up' for actually trying to make the world a better place and take responsibility for ourselves.
Incredible, isn't it?
"You gotta be shittin' me"
//It is more of an Archie Bunker mentality - a la 2007...//
ooh! that's it! you nailed it on the head, exactly!!!!
:)
You know because of where I live I am surronded by these people. Arizona is so
conservative.
It makes me feel crazy.
I have 3 friends who are not
completey brainwashed. Thats it.
I just don't talk about news or current events with anyone else.
-conbo
I just don't talk about news or current events with anyone else.
-conbo
March 9, 2007 9:55 PM
Yeah. Even though I am fortunate to live in NYC which means that it is rarer to run into someone who has a conservative view... I still have people that I do business with, for instance, where ... the devil is in the details ... and you have to be careful... suss them out before you get into it...
//the devil is in the details ... and you have to be careful... suss them out before you get into it...//
yep.
I was talking to son's sitter, who is a very nice woman, very compassionate, and I really consider her to be a friend. I was telling her that I blog a lot, and she said she didn't follow politics at all and asked me what the difference was between dems and repubs, I laughed and said not a lot.
Then, she got this horrible look on her face and said
"Dems are the ones who kill babies! No way, I could never vote for that."
I changed the subject.
The thing is I really like her she is a good person, Otherwise she would not watch my son.
And she's not stupid either. Why is everyone in the dark in this country about their own government and how it runs?
-conbo
The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency
Mahmood Mamdani
The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make?
The most powerful mobilisation in New York City is in relation to Darfur, not Iraq. One would expect the reverse, for no other reason than that most New Yorkers are American citizens and so should feel directly responsible for the violence in occupied Iraq. But Iraq is a messy place in the American imagination, a place with messy politics. Americans worry about what their government should do in Iraq. Should it withdraw? What would happen if it did? In contrast, there is nothing messy about Darfur. It is a place without history and without politics; simply a site where perpetrators clearly identifiable as ‘Arabs’ confront victims clearly identifiable as ‘Africans’.
A full-page advertisement has appeared several times a week in the New York Times calling for intervention in Darfur now. It wants the intervening forces to be placed under ‘a chain of command allowing necessary and timely military action without approval from distant political or civilian personnel’. That intervention in Darfur should not be subject to ‘political or civilian’ considerations and that the intervening forces should have the right to shoot – to kill – without permission from distant places: these are said to be ‘humanitarian’ demands. In the same vein, a New Republic editorial on Darfur has called for ‘force as a first-resort response’. What makes the situation even more puzzling is that some of those who are calling for an end to intervention in Iraq are demanding an intervention in Darfur; as the slogan goes, ‘Out of Iraq and into Darfur.’
What would happen if we thought of Darfur as we do of Iraq, as a place with a history and politics – a messy politics of insurgency and counter-insurgency? Why should an intervention in Darfur not turn out to be a trigger that escalates rather than reduces the level of violence as intervention in Iraq has done? Why might it not create the actual possibility of genocide, not just rhetorically but in reality? Morally, there is no doubt about the horrific nature of the violence against civilians in Darfur. The ambiguity lies in the politics of the violence, whose sources include both a state-connected counter-insurgency and an organised insurgency, very much like the violence in Iraq.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html
Oh, there's a new thread, eh?
Post a Comment