Posted on 10/28/2007 10:40:39 AM PDT by calcowgirl
In a recent broadside deriding the Clinton administration's response to Al Qaeda, Rudy Giuliani told an audience at Pat Robertson's Regent University: "Bin Laden declared war on us. We didn't hear it. I thought it was pretty clear at the time, but a lot of people didn't see it, couldn't see it." Other tenets of his standard stump speech include the assertion that he's been "studying terrorism" for more than 30 years, and that "the thing that distinguishes me on terrorism is that I have more experience in dealing with it" than the other presidential candidates.
However, in private testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2004, Rudy gave a very different version of how much he knew about terrorism when the World Trade Center was attacked. That testimony isn't scheduled to be released publicly until after the 2008 presidential election, but the Voice has obtained a copy of it. And it reveals a New York mayor who was anything but an "expert on terrorism."
A 15-page "memorandum for the record," prepared by a commission counsel and dated April 20, 2004, quotes Giuliani conceding that it wasn't until "after 9/11" that "we brought in people to brief us on al Qaeda." According to the memorandum, Giuliani told two commission members and five staffers: "But we had nothing like this pre 9/11, which was a mistake, because if experts share a lot of info," there would be a "better chance of someone making heads and tails" of the "situation." (Such memoranda are not verbatim transcripts of the confidential commission interviews, but are described on the cover page as "100 percent accurate" notes taken by staffers, stamped "commission sensitive/unclassified" on the top of each page.)
Asked about the “flow of information about al Qaeda threats from 1998-2001,” Giuliani said: “At the time, I wasn’t told it was al Qaeda, but now that I look back at it, I think it was al Qaeda.” He also said that as part of one of his post-9/11 briefings, “we had in Bodansky, who had written a book on bin Laden.” Giuliani was referring to Yossef Bodanksy, the author of Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America, which was published in 1999 and predicted “spectacular terrorist strikes in Washington and/or New York.” Giuliani wrote in his own book, Leadership, that Judi Nathan got him a copy of Bodansky’s prophetic work “shortly after 9/11,” and that he covered it in “highlighter and notes,” citing his study of it as an example of how he “mastered a subject.” Apparently, he also invited Bodansky to address key members of his staff.
Giuliani attributed his pre-9/11 shortcomings in part to the FBI, which was run by his close friend (and current endorser) Louis Freeh, and to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, an FBI-directed partnership with the NYPD. "We already had JTTF, and got flow information no one else got," he explained. "But did we get the flow of information we wanted? No. We would be told about a threat, but not about the underlying nature of the threat. I wanted all the same information the FBI had, and we didn't get that until after 9/11. Immediately after 9/11, we were made a complete partner." He added: "Without 9/11, I never would have been able to send an adviser to FBI briefings."
Tom Von Essen, who was Giuliani’s fire commissioner and is now a partner in his consulting company, Giuliani Partners, was asked at a confidential interview on April 7, 2004, what information he had “re terrorism prior to 9/11” and said: “I was told nothing at all.” Bernard Kerik, the police commissioner on 9/11, who also later joined Giuliani Partners, appeared to contradict Giuliani, insisting in his April 6 private appearance: “I never had a problem with the FBI.” Kerik, who did not become commissioner until August 2000, testified, however, that he did have a problem with his own department. “When I took over,” he said, “I was not happy with NYPD’s intelligence in general.” He said the intelligence division “had more to do with fighting criminal activity than terrorism” and that “within 3-4 months, I directed a total merger of NYPD intelligence.” In other words, Kerik indicated that he’d begun a reorganization of the department’s counterterrorism intelligence operations in 2001, as the Giuliani administration entered its final year—hardly a testament to its urgent understanding of the threat.
Despite conceding his lack of information to the 9/11 Commission, Giuliani recently told New York Times Magazine reporter Matt Bai that he wished he could discuss "all the things he knew about terrorism," but that he "could not, unfortunately, share" this information with Bai "because they probably remain classified." Giuliani went on at great length in Bai's cover story—as he has repeatedly on the campaign trail—about how, as president, he would apply CompStat, the famous anti-crime measurement and action program instituted at the NYPD during Giuliani's mayoralty, to the fight against terrorism. Bai called Giuliani's argument an "impressive case."
Compare that to Giuliani's response when he was asked by the 9/11 Commission if CompStat could be used as a "resource in the war on terror." He replied: "Bernie knows more than I," referring the commission to Kerik, who became President Bush's nominee for Homeland Security secretary a few months later. According to the commission's memorandum, Giuliani also urged them to "talk to the current NYPD re current terrorism Compstat," a reference to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Though Giuliani thought the application of CompStat to terrorism was "an excellent idea," he offered no suggestions of his own.
Twice, Giuliani dodged the commission's questions about the radios used by first responders—one of the key critiques of the city's 9/11 response made by New York and national firefighters' unions. The city's firefighters were stuck with the same analog radios that had malfunctioned in 1993, when the World Trade Center was first attacked, because the department had had to recall newer digital radios in the spring of 2001. Pressed about this nearly three years after 9/11, Giuliani deflected the question with a suggestion that the memorandum summarizes as follows: "Speak with Richie re whether digital would have worked better." Giuliani was referring to Richard Sheirer, the former director of emergency management, who had virtually nothing to do with the selection of the firefighters' radios (and who, like Von Essen, is also now at Giuliani Partners). Sheirer had already appeared before the commission and was questioned, appropriately, about his own agency's radios, not the fire department's. He declared that their radios "worked very well" on 9/11, "allowing me to communicate" with the command center, though the bunker was actually abandoned shortly after the second plane hit.
Similarly, when Giuliani was pressed about the "repeater" or amplifier that was installed at the World Trade Center after the 1993 bombing to aid firefighter radio communications there, the memorandum indicates simply: "No knowledge." Not only was this answer an indication of how little attention Giuliani paid to fire response and other security issues at the complex prior to 9/11, it was an indication that he wasn't taking the critique of the city's response seriously even years later. In response to a recent video released by the firefighters' union attacking Giuliani on this issue, his campaign has been trying to shift the blame to the repeater, suggesting that it was the failure to trigger this system that caused the firefighters not to hear evacuation orders.
While candidate Giuliani has also begun blaming Sheirer's predecessor, Jerry Hauer, for the decision to put the command center in the WTC complex, he did no such thing when asked about it during his commission appearance. He said his administration "wanted a place in lower Manhattan" and "that was probably the primary reason for it"—which is exactly what Hauer says about why it wound up there. Once Giuliani ruled that the center had to be within "walking distance" of City Hall, the World Trade Center became a likely location, since the downtown area is entirely below the flood plain, barring any below-ground site.
In his testimony, Giuliani also expressed "sympathy for President Bush being taken to task for not picking up on one detail in a briefing which in retrospect is very important when the President receives so many, many briefings." This was a reference to the presidential daily briefing that Bush received on August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." According to the commission's final report, this briefing was the 36th related to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda that Bush had received, but the first that highlighted an attack on the U.S. It made specific references to a "bin Laden cell in New York" that was "recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks," and also reported that the FBI had found "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Ironically, it was precisely this kind of information that Giuliani had complained about not receiving from the FBI just minutes earlier in the same testimony.
Though Giuliani has been presenting himself on the campaign trail as the person who can best safeguard America, he told the commission: "The only thing to protect you against terrorism is to find out about a plot in advance." And thus far, he has presented no plausible evidence to suggest that he'd be better than anyone else running for president at doing that.
Spitzer is an egregious POS whose billionaire property magnate father bought him the governor’s job. Rudy has his flaws, but Prince Eliot is in a class of his own.
Rudy is not being blamed for what he did not know.
He is being blamed for saying on the campaign trail that he knew things which he did (and does) not.
Gorelick is irrelevant to this subject. Nice try, though.
She sat there like an ignorant ass as if she wasn't a part of the problem. She knew many people in the FBI like Rudy and The State Dept. This story sounds like a Hillary Media Matters hit piece. Worst of all it was in the Village Voice (Marxist news)
Rudy’s testimony conflicts with Rudy’s campaign statements.
Gorelick, the wall, the Commission, Media Matters, Karl Marx—all irrelevant.
If Rudy were indeed a "lefty", then the VV would be helping him, not attacking him.
Rudy is without a doubt a "lefty," but just like you, the VV prefers, promotes, and votes according to the little letter after the name. Yours is "R;" theirs is "D;" that's the only difference.
Without partisan politics, the there is no power. Lefties only have power via the Democratic party. Conservatives only have power through the Republican party.
No matter how some on FR may wish that this were not so, it is. Conservatives ignore that fact at their peril.
Unfortunately, when the “R” gets so close to the “D” in reality, there is NO conservative option in either party and NO CHOICE. Please spare me the “lesser of two evils” argument since that is what has brought us to the point that the “R” and “D” have become virtually indistinguishable.
So you just give up, eh?
The reality is that politics has been widening out in the last decade, with the left moonbats going wider left, and the right fringe doing the same, both fueled by alternative media. The major political parties haven't changed much in absolute terms.
But that doesn't change the facts that without partisan politics, conservatives have nothing. The only hope is to change the party *without* destroying it in the process by attempting to take it so far away from the center that it can't get elected.
The best way to change the Republicans might be to attack the fringe of the left, and thus give the Rs some breathing room in the center. The anti-abortion people have long ago stopped attempting to change the mind of the general population about abortion, and instead attempt to control the Republican party under the illusion that the party will end abortion for them. Nope, won't happen. The anti-abortion position must become the norm for *both* parties, and then abortion will end. In the mean time, the Ds are making too much hay out of the pro-abortion side, and the Rs the anti-side. That's not a recipe for actually making a change. It's only a recipe for the professional politicians, and the professional special interest groups (both pro and con) to make a living. No one really wants the fight to be over, because all of them lose if the problem is solved.
Meaningful long term change is only done the way the Stalin did it in the 30's. He sent his followers to invade the media and academia, knowing that the left would eventually control that way. The problem is that such a thing takes so long that Stalin never saw his success. Current conservatives will never see their success either, especially since they haven't really begun a coordinated effort the way Stalin did.
And with a party whose head is a liberal like Giuliani, conservatives have nothing. Same difference.
The culture war has been fought and won by the left long ago. Vote for the left, "R's" or "D's" if you like. It's a meaningless "choice."
That's because conservatives are going for instant gratification instead of doing the long term hard work that will put them solidly in power. Stalin put the left in power by telling his followers in the 30's to get into the media, and into academia and raise little leftists.
Conservatives aren't willing to fight a fight that takes longer than one election cycle to win.
That's about the only way one can support this loser for President - ignore what he has actually said and done.
Rudy (Mister Tort Reform) might as well sue the 911 commission....he has already sued everybody else...
The right fringe? Ya mean the folks that actually believe in a sovereign nation? That believe in the right to keep and bear arms? The folks that don't think taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortion? People who think marriage is between a man and a woman? (etc.) Ya mean that "fringe."
Sorry. The "right" hasn't moved much at all. The Republican Party has, however, been infiltrated by a bunch of liberals who want to change everything it stood for.
I would never post anything that the Village (Idiot) Voice says. They are nothing but a leftist lying rag, and this is nothing but a false hit piece.
If you believe that statement, you are incredibly naive. You would also be powerfully underestimating the nature of the left. You don't hold onto power forever unless you earn it.
Conservatives are fighting the fight as we speak. They are fighting to stop the encroachment of liberalism in the GOP.
I am sure you have heard that once you surrender, it is hard to regain what you have given up.
Most of us are bright enough to know that a promise of a miraculous return to conservatism in the GOP is like selling snake oil to the dying.
We aren't going to give ground, especially for a candidate like Rudy. Please remember the GOP contolled Congress and the White House and failed to teach and use their power in an effective way. They had the reins of power and blew it by surrendering conservative principle.
We will continue to fight this until the bitter end. So don't expect a surrender to Giuliani.
contolled=controlled. Typo, sorry
You completely missed my point and why I bought up Stalin. If conservatives ever expect to get back into the mainstream (where abortion is again abhorent, marriage between one man - one woman is the norm, etc.) then they have to do in reverse what Stalin did beginning in the 30's. He told his people to take over the schools, the entertainment industry, and journalism. They did, and 75 years later they have the power.
When conservatives make it their mission to get their kids into the university tenure tracks, into the movie and TV business, and into Journalism, then they will return to the mainstream by dragging the mainstream back to conservative values.
It's a sure way to success, but it will take decades, just like the leftists journey took. Let me know when conservatives actually begin to take such actions as a goal, not merely whine that a Republican politician is not socially conservative enough, while they damage the political party that will be their vehicle back into the mainstream, if they ever become wise enough to take that journey.
Conservatives not willing to fight longer than one election cycle?
The same people criticizing conservatives for fighting against abortion since 1973.
You never addressed me about Stalin. It must have been another FReeper.
I will say that your idea is patently absurd.
You keep fighting. By saying “I think I will give up because Hollywood and Academia are not on my side at the moment”, will get you nothing. The left has generally always been in charge of those institutions. It certainly didn’t stop a conservative landslide by Reagan, twice. People were hungry for real leadership, as they are now.
You do it with perserverance and electing good conservative candidates with vision.
Abandoning principle will bring great loss to this party.
It gives people no choice other than liberalism or elitism, and in some cases, both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.