Second, Giuliani is worried about acquittals. That's not going to happen.

It's now more than obvious why Giuliani used the fake timing of his prostate cancer as an excuse to withdraw from the New York Senate race after Hillary Clinton entered it.

The man is a incompetent weenie.

Rudy the G-man, self created 'hero' of 9/11, is thinking about running for NY governor next year. Maybe this trial helps him, or maybe he is worried about some of the facts coming out, such as why cops and fireman could not talk to each other.

mebbe if obama would make rudy the czar of "the war on poison ivy and mosquitoes" he'd stfu... mebbe he could even wear a designer uniform...with a camo Dependsâ„¢ nattily worn on the outside...

I have to admit, about the risk thing, that it did occur to me during the first World Trade Center bombing trial. I had to take part in the trial in a very minor way, laying the foundation for introduction of a particular piece of evidence, and after my testimony, on my way back to work, I found myself looking over my shoulders at every swarthy guy that was strap hanging near me each time I changed trains. The thought did cross my mind that supporters might strike out at the witnesses. Stupid? Yes. Paranoid? You betcha. But that was my feeling and I stand by it.

But reality intrudes and nothing happened to me that day or any day thereafter. Well things have happened over the past 15 years, but nothing related to that event in my life. So, I guess what I am saying is, I understand the fears enough to not make fun of them, but I don't see them as particularly valid.

Yous guys don't get it. Bin Laden might dress like a monk, enter the NY marathon wearing a suicide bomb vest, and blow himself up in front of AIG, creating a distraction, so the rest of his band of merry jihadists can rescue Kalid, spiriting him off in an oxcart.

"Giuliani doesn't know what he's talking about."

Big whoop!

Giuliani has never worried if what he's talking about makes sense. He's a guy who made a great living as a prosecutor; having enemies and being able to go to war against them is what he does. He enjoys it. His style is all about confrontation. He's not about the rule of law; he's about power. He wants it with no constraints on it.

He surrounds himself with sycophants like Kerik because they reflect back to him his own image of himself. He's a small minded thug with a big ego - and the media has built him into a mythic character because they like the narrative.

He should never be allowed near any kind of authority again. Has everyone forgotten what kind of train wreck his personal life has been - and how the taxpayers footed the bill for his affairs? Has everyone forgotten how his arrogance played out in a number of bad decisions?

xaxnar - sing it, brother. every word is true.

One thing I don't understand about the media's love of Giuliani is how they still afford him such respect when it is clear that he does not have the respect of the public. The man spent tens of millions and he obtained one (1) representative to the GOP convention. Sure, sure, TV bookers are busy people just looking to get folks on the air, but even Republicans didn't vote for the man.

This is another reminder of a media that has no genuine grasp of recent history. They should have realized long ago the dual nature here. Giuliani was indeed an inspiring leader in the immediate hours after the 9/11 attacks. His presence was comforting to people, and they clung to him as a leader. However, once you looked into the matter more deeply, he was also personally responsible for disastrous decisions relating to the preparation for the attack, decisions where he personally fought against the recommendations of others that were correct in retrospect. Among many bad choices, the incompatible communication systems between the police and the firefighters meant that people died unnecessarily when the buildings collapsed. The radio incompatibilities was well known in NYC before 9/11, and would have been addressed quickly in a competent administration.

This is just part of the vast, organic, right-wing conspiracy to lob mud at the Obama Administration to bring it down by the sheer weight of all the shit piled up on it.

They no longer use the term 'war on terror.' They have been very slow to react to the whole situation with Major Hasan, which was clearly a terrorist act in the name of Islamic terrorism. It would seem to me that this is the worst symbol to send, that this is a civilian matter.

That music you hear in the background is Paul Simon's Still Crazy After All These Years.

Perhaps, after he's found guilty - and I dispute that it's merely a "show trial" if he has already confessed - the bailiffs can feed him into a giant meat grinder with plexiglas sides, maybe right on Fifth Avenue. Maybe that would be bloody and final enough to satisfy the Republicans.

It seems odd to me the way they're screaming out one side of their mouths that the Obama administration is not taking punishment of terrorists seriously, while screaming out the other that KSM should be tried in a closed military tribunal where the public will not get the satisfaction that justice was done.

How is "change of venue" a risk? The trial shouldn't be in NYC because there's a risk that they might move it away from NYC? Huh-wuh?

Maybe he means there's a risk that the venue could risk causing a verdict to be thrown out on appeal, because he couldn't get a fair trial in New York -- if so, that's a funny way of saying it.

There's always the possibility of acquittal, change of venue...

Well, yeah?

I thought this was America, land of the brave home of the free. We don't do kangaroo courts where guilt is assured before cases are presented.

I thought there was a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Fooliani and his teabagger pals are always talking about slippery slopes to big government and socialism.

What if it was ok for people to be declared enemy combatants, then denied their habeous corpus rights, their right to not be tortured, and their right to confront witnesses and evidence presented against them?

It seems to me that that's the very bottom of the slippery slope, and we're already there.

Obama and Holder's effort to reclimb the slope are heroic in the face of the mindless fearmongering presented by Cheney and the teabag right.

Ghouliani, a verb, a noun, and 911.

I like the way he says the Obama administration doesn't use the propaganda term "war on terror" like it's a bad thing. Somehow, I don't think George "shithead" Stephanapolous challenged on the reasons to still use that neocon term.

As the right-wing hissy fit gets up to speed, it's worth reading a nice piece by Bruce Schneier on security versus security theater.

Excellent points, Steve!

-even if you did lift them in their entirety from Snufflopagous as he confronted Rudy, point by point.

Oh; he didn't?

Thanks, anyway, for watching, so I didn't have to. . .

did wee george happen to ask about bernard kerik?

Giuliani was feeling whiny that he and all Republicans were caught off guard after nearly a year without daily scare sessions, they all soiled themselves at the announcement.

It says so much that the Republicans simply seem terrified of KSM's words.

Don't forget that during a Republican debate, when Ron Paul talked about "blowback," Rudy chimed in immediately to score some points by acting offended at the notion anything America did invited 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

The audience was delighted and who can forget Chuck Todd on TV talking about how "Rudy owns 9/11!!!!" over and over? But regardless of whether Rudy was deliberately misinterpreting Paul's point or demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension (your guess is as good as mine), there is no getting around the fact that this same person is now claiming that something Obama is doing will invite another 9/11.

So shorter Giuliani: Bombing other countries and occupying their holy land does not invite terrorist attacks, but due process and the federal court system does.

Interesting world view.

By the way... Obama should be trying all of them in federal court, not just the ones he thinks we can convict. Thanks, Dick Cheney, for making it impossible to ever get real justice.

I really doubt that there will even be a trial. The most likely outcome is for Mohammed to plead guilty.

Every so often Giulliani rears his head to make his usual stupid comments, I think he is probably an even bigger crook than his buddy Kerik, and that he should keep his head down.

Giuliani is an clown who says irresponsible garbage. Part of the ongoing disgrace that is the American right.

Put the blame on boyish George...

Third, Giuliani went on and on about the "risk" posed by a trial, but he neglected to identify what this "risk" is. I'm genuinely curious -- what does he think will happen?

That was Stephanopoulos question to pound...
Not yours.

As to acquittal, I'm reminded of what a friend said many years ago when Adolph Eichmann was on trial in Israel. He should have been acquitted. He's in the courtroom in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or wherever the trial was, and the judge says "You're found not guilty. You're free to go."

Let's do that with KSM and see what happens.

"...Giuliani doesn't know what he's talking about..."-Benen

Exactly, yet he is allowed to make such claims unchallenged. Is Stph. even aware of Obama's record? Is he even aware of Guiliani's record? A master of hypocrisy, ignorance and stupidity, who tried to get a hood...a crook to be head of the nation's security...so why, of all people does he invite him on the show? What, was McCain, Gingrich or Liz Cheney busy?

Does any Democratic ex-mayor appear on television as often as Rudy Does?
Does any Democratic ex-Speaker of the House appear as often as Newt Gingrich?
Does any Democrat who lost a presidential election appear as often as McCain?
Despite the fact that all three are failures, adulterers, have no influence within their own party, and are completely bereft of new ideas they are nonetheless given undeserved credibility by a media that seems to have an endless appetite for substance-free bullshit.

"They have been very slow to react to the whole situation with Major Hasan, which was clearly a terrorist act in the name of Islamic terrorism."

So what does Rudy think should be a quicker reaction, bombing somewhere?

Last I checked, the DoD and FBI have launched a rather large investigation. I'm sure that it would just be easy for them to come out and say "yep, another case of Islamic terrorism", then be done with it. But I'm thinking that they want to be a bit more thorough than that.

Of course, it doesn't help matters that a Pete Hoestrka compromised an NSA operation that was essential to the investigation

They have been very slow to react to the whole situation with Major Hasan,

what is this supposed to mean? The investigation began immediately. Obama spoke about it as soon as he heard.

Sorry - it's a rhetorical question. I know what he REALLY means - it's that Obama didn't jump to the conclusion "Its's TERRA TERRA TERRA!!!!!" and wet his pants, like they did.

Scary terrorists in NY BOOGA BOOGA! Man I've seen scarier homeless people. Giuliani forgets the swift and speedy trial of the '93 Bombing suspects . Convenient, that. Crowed about justice then.