Rudy Giuliani on 9/11 - a new look at the "hero"

AM New York ^ | August 23, 2006 | Ellis Henican

[Eagle Forgotten]

It's the unexamined question of 9/11: What if Rudy Giuliani wasn't quite the hero everybody thought?

....

But what if Rudy's take-charge image was mostly a load of bravado and PR? What if the actual decisions he made - before, during and after the terror attacks - were directly responsible for the city's inability to deal effectively with crucial aspects of the crisis?

....

With dozens of exclusive and previously unreleased interviews, Barrett and Collins show how the ambitious ex-mayor has spent recent years revising his own truth of 9/11 - and profiting handsomely from it. Casting himself as a prescient terror hawk who wisely prepared his city for the inevitable, Giuliani in fact ignored repeated warnings from the experts, including his own commissioners and aides.

Instead of confronting the looming danger, they tell how he grew increasingly distracted by pet projects, political turf wars and an extraordinarily messy personal life.

[finnigan2]

"It's a mistake to think that everything that happens in American politics is a plot by the Clintons."

- Don't be naive.
When somebody from the rabid left wing Village Voice gets together with someone from a "fake but accurate" outfit like SeeBS News and, five years after the fact just happens to turn out a smear job on Guilianni, I smell a rat.
Especially when just as he is starting to emerge on the short list of Republican Presidential candidates who, the polls show could whip Hitlery's ass.
Suddenly a book comes along accusing him of not having a plan in place to anticipate giant airliners crashing into the WTC and, horror of horrors, communications (with over 300 emergency workers dead in the rubble) were in chaos. Imagine all that - and his fault too.
While Rudy performed as best as could be expected that day, his major accomplishment were the years he spent before in cleaning up the crime ridden cess pool that New York had become and making it safe to once again walk about in after dark.
The Clinton's have a well deserved reputation for using everyone from the IRS to connections in the Justice Department and boot lickers in the MSM to smear opponents or suppress investigations.
A smear book would just be a minor campaign project for them which an old hand like Blumenthal could handle in his spare time.
(PS - Your recollection of BJ's role after the Oklahoma City bombing seems somewhat at odds with mine. I seem to recall that after he burnt to death all those dangerous Christians and their children in Waco, he claimed that he was out of the loop on the whole operation and if anybody wanted further information they should speak to Janet Reno because he had delegated the entire operation to her. What leadership!

[arthurus]

They won't think of it that way at all. They will just not have the enthusiasm for R.G. and many will not go out the front door to go vote. All the well-they-should pronouncements in the world will not change the outcome.I myself would not have let anything at all stop me from voting for Reagan and my wife would have to have died to keep me from voting for W but, frankly If RG is the candidate, well, I will go vote for him unless iget a chance to make some money, or my car dies or... You can argue with me till you turn blue and maybe convince me to go whatever, but I am here only a representative of a large population that pays even more attention to their religion than I do. Bitterness at others' presumed obtuseness does not excuse nominating a bad candidate.

[arthurus]

Divorced is only one problem. Rudy has multiple problems. Not only that but that divorce was followed by a model marriage. Reagan committed that breach but committed no others after. W was a bad drinker, but ended that practice and did not resume it. Rudy has had woman problems plus his advocacy and continued support for all those other red alert things. Religious Christians will not see that his perceived spine of steel is enough to balance the basket of horrors that accompany it. It is the character issue, even if the word is never used publicly.It is hard to understand if you do not share the mindset but someone with that baggage will be seen as unlikely to prevail against the Satanic Jihad. In some respects I do not see it as being quite hopeless to elect a Kerry or Clinton or any other mainstream leftist. I expect we will have to lose a couple of cities to get a response but that response will come. It will be a wild flinging of nukes but there will be a lot of obliteration going on in the relevant areas. Israel will not matter at all because an Edwards launched nuke is apt to do for Tel Aviv in the process.

[Eagle Forgotten]

What I was driving at, which you took umbrage with, is that too strident, biased posters, who become quite rabid, during primary/election seasons DO get ZOTTED here. That's part of FR' history.

I appreciate your attempt to advise me, but, frankly, I don't think I've been strident, let alone rabid. It's reasonable to ask whether Rudy Giuliani's credentials on one particular key issue have been overrated. That's the question my original post raised. Rereading it now, I don't see any stridency to it.

If you'd stop playing games and just write, as you finally did, about not knowing yet, etc., you'd be on far firmer ground.

Maybe I made a mistake by not going out of my way to disavow various misreadings of my post. There's a difference between saying "Giuliani is overrated on one issue" and saying "Giuliani should never under any circumstances be President." Should my initial post have said that? The distinction seems so obvious that it never occurred to me to spell it out. Frankly, I hate having to waste time trying to guess how people might misinterpret what I write.

Can the smarmy, snarky, "I'm better than you" stuff, and you won't get beat up.

Where did you get the "I'm better than you" impression? There's only one place in this thread where I trotted out my personal qualifications. I was living in NYC on 9/11. Therefore, I felt entitled to give my perception of the public mood here, in response to the charge that "people were panicky" after the attack. Other than that, I haven't brought anything personal into it. I haven't said "I'm better than you" by calling another contributor a "stupid newbie" or a "stinking lefty troll" the way you did.

[BroncosFan]

Your faith in Rudy as a conservative flies in the face of his record. In case you haven't noticed, NYC is still rather over-taxed. And, do you really think he made meaningful cuts in the city bureaucracy? If so, your faith in Rudy's self-serving stats is cute. I loved it when Rudy booted Yassir and told the Saudis to shove it, but let's be real here, those were PR stunts. Front page of the NY Post stuff.

We're all amateurs in this field, but the record suggests a pig-headed authoritarian lacking intellectual sophistication. Basically, a prosecutor on the make.

Finally, would someone please address the fundamental question of why this nutty liberal deserves to be president??????

PS: The current 2008 GOP field is awful. Once again, as in 96, 00, and 04 we'll probably have to settle for a moron who can raise money. In a dreamworld, I'd back Sen. Jon Kyl or former Sen. Nickles . . . in reality, I might back Tommy the Tank in a 3rd party run. Sad.

[BroncosFan]

Spell McCain properly. I mean, c'mon!

[presently no screen name]

I loved it when Rudy booted Yassir and told the Saudis to shove it, but let's be real here, those were PR stunts.

In a dreamworld, I'd back.... in reality, I might

You are so damn sure you know the intentions of someone else, yet you're unsure what YOU would do - only in a dreamworld.

You can't handle that Rudy is self-assured while you waddle in indecision.

[Churchillspirit]

On the positive side.....

Who would YOU pick as the Republican candidate in'08?

[BroncosFan]

Of the current field, I'd hold by nose and vote for Allen. I'm just getting so damn sick of having to hold my nose . . .

[BroncosFan]

You can stage a PR stunt and still believe in what you're doing. But does that qualify one to be president?

Read up on how Rudy treated his staff and wives. He's seriously unstable when challenged, a total control freak, and obsessed with personal vendettas.

[presently no screen name]

unstable when challenged, a total control freak, and obsessed with personal vendettas.

So you hate Rudy, move on and get over your grief. Your critical nature is all I remember of your posts and your NEED to correct someone when "McCain" isn't spelled to your liking. And you talk about control freaks?

BTW, wishy-washy, Johnny-boy M, will not win in spite of all your 'Rudy trashing'. It merely shows the threat Rudy poses.

[jmc813]

Your faith in Rudy as a conservative flies in the face of his record. In case you haven't noticed, NYC is still rather over-taxed. And, do you really think he made meaningful cuts in the city bureaucracy? If so, your faith in Rudy's self-serving stats is cute. I loved it when Rudy booted Yassir and told the Saudis to shove it, but let's be real here, those were PR stunts. Front page of the NY Post stuff.

Big 'ol bump to that. If you think the Bush cult of personality is bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[SDGOP]

As rush likes to say, when fox news needs a looser liberal they go off and get ellis henican.

[SDGOP]

To compare divorce and adultry just shows how pathetic rudy supporters are. Divorce just means two people didn't get along, adultry on the other hand shows that one person wasn't faithful. There is a very big difference.

For rudy supporters to attempt to blur the lines on it just shows how sad they've become in trying to cover up his indiscretions. If rudy's wife can't trust him, why the hell should we?

[SDGOP]

You can talk about polls all you want, but you forget one thing. Polls this far out don't mean anything. Just because rudy polls a little bit ahead of hillary doesn't mean SQUAT! Dole polled ahead of clinton, we all saw where that got him. Bush polled 15 points ahead of gore, we all know how that turned out. Bush senior polled double digits ahead of clinton, we all know how that turned out. Reagan was polling 35 points behind carter a year out of the election. Reagan was polling the WORST of all the candidates in 1980, and the rinos then tried to shove then bush the elder down our throats in the name of electability.

You guys will never learn.

[nopardons]

For Rudy's detractors, to try to smear him as an homosexual, deriding his accomplishments, and not even KNOWING his accomplishments, is what is sad and pathetic; not top mention juvenile and moronic.

[nopardons]

No poll matters; the ONLY thing that matters is the final tally on election night!

Pity that YOU ignore that.

[SDGOP]

1. I never insinuated he was gay, how can a man be gay when he has numerous affairs? That's ridiculous. Nobody here is alleging he's gay either, were just stating that he is super pro gay and that makes a lot of conservatives nervous

2. We do know the only poll that matters is on election night, but do you? Rudy and MCcain supporters often tout them claiming, look how far they lead in the polls. My point was that means diddly, since polls this far out mean nothing.