Posted on 11/18/2007 8:28:46 AM PST by perfect_rovian_storm
A group of 9/11 firefighters and victims' family members with eyes on derailing Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is close to a decision on forming an entity that would run issue ads in key early nominating states.
"TV made him a hero, and we'll use TV to take him down," New York Fire Chief Jim Riches told ABC News.
The final decision about the formation of an outside entity will happen sometime within the next few weeks after the group finalizes its plans at a meeting scheduled for after Thanksgiving. So far, though, under Riches' leadership, the group has sought legal guidance and help from political consultants.
If the group decides to move forward, it would set up a 527 committee -- or something similar to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which in 2004 helped sink Democratic Sen. John Kerry's White House bid.
This Monday, the firefighters and family members are holding a meeting at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire hoping to spread the word about what they say is Giuliani's "egregious" use of 9/11 for political gain.
The group also is considering additional trips to early presidential primary states Iowa, Florida and South Carolina.
Riches, who lost his firefighter son Jimmy in the World Trade Center's north tower, said, "We don't want him running on 9/11 or the bodies of all these dead people or my dead son saying that he did a great job that day."
He and other members of the anti-Giuliani group claim 9/11 first responders were given bad radios and that that prevented them from hearing evacuation orders when the World Trade Center buildings were about to collapse. They also contend Giuliani rushed cleanup work and misled people about air quality at Ground Zero, where recovery workers, including Riches, say they contracted illnesses.
Asked to comment for this story, the Giuliani campaign referred ABC News to a statement from Lee Ielpi, another firefighter whose son died on Sept. 11.
"I understand the emotion surrounding Sept. 11, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that it was the terrorists who attacked New York City," the statement said. "On that day and the days following, New Yorkers and the rest of the country were fortunate to have the steady and strong leadership of Mayor Rudy Giuliani."
Believe what you like. When the Democratic Party went to far leftward in the 1950`s and early 1960`s, Reagan became a Republican and never looked back. Reagan's own actions in the 1976 GOP primary campaign shows that attacks on other Republican`s was not off limits for himself. No reason why attacks on a liberal like Roooty should be off limits today.
JR doesn’t define Giuliani as a liberal. Neither do I.
>>>>>Do you really expect anyone to believe anythng you have to say after that?
Why not? My point was, Giuliani has defined himself as a liberal for his entire political career. Now you're trying to define him as a conservative. Won't work! Rooty`s liberal record speaks for itself.
As long as it is factual, and the whole truth be told, it shouldn’t be feared. No cherry picking, no manipulation, no dishonesty.
What bothers me most about Guiliani is his private life. If a man will lie and betray his wife and family, he is not trustworthy, period.
He is as much of a practiced liar as Hillary.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Runnin’ Scared
Rudy’s Pants On Fire
Secret testimony shows that Rudy’s stump speech is inflated, at best
by Wayne Barrett
October 23rd, 2007 9:25 PM
Additional research assistance by Danielle Schiffman, Adrienne Gaffney,and Samuel Rubenfeld
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.
“Bush and Cheney were then hiding somewhere and Bush looked frightened and unsure when he finally emerged. “
Even if you had a good argument in support of Rudy, you lost all credibility with your Bush bashing.
Read my tag if you think I’m Rudy boosting.
Lighten up, Francis.
Changing your tagline doesn’t change what you posted in #29. I don’t want Rooty anywhere near the nomination or the eventual nominee, bucko.
Until it’s time for them to be my enemy again. :)
When it comes time to vote next November, and should Guliani be the nominee, the cause of our conservatism will not be served by staying at home. Your screen namesake, Ronaldus Magnus never referred to someone who voted with him 80% as his "enemy."
If elected, Rudy will offer battle to Islam; the Beast and her party will offer our heads.
And what about Ms. klintoon?
As pure as the wind driven snow except for —— oh never mind I’ve only 6 hours before I go to bed so there is not nearly enought time, so just fill in the information youself.
Do you believe Rudy would recognize that the Second Amendment codifies the right of any and all free persons to keep and bear arms, without government interference, for personal and collective defense?
Got any more brilliant questions about Hillary's Union supporters attacking ANY Presidential candidate?
>>>>>Your screen namesake, Ronaldus Magnus never referred to someone who voted with him 80% as his "enemy."
And neither do I. Truth is, Rooty doesn't agree with the Reagan agenda 80% of the time. He agrees with the liberal agenda most of the time. Rooty supports Roe v Wade, abortion on demand, gun control, gay rights, amnesty and big government liberalism. That marks Rooty as the enemy of conservatism. He also sees nothing wrong with trampling on the Constitution and IMO that is pure evil.
Fred Thompson will also battle Islamofascism and he doesn't have ANY of Giuliani's liberal baggage. Fred can also beat Hillary. Rooty won't get enough conservative support behind him to achieve that victory.
No liberals, NO rinos, NO Rooty, NO thanks.
You really believe Rudy is pure evil?
Amen! I understand the frustration of the Hunter supporters (i.e. reality doesn't always trump perception in the "real world"), but that doesn't give them license to kill fellow conservatives.
Yes indeed. Anyone who tramples on the Constitution is undermining our Republic. That is evil. Anyone who supports Roe v Wade and abortion on demand is evil. Same goes for the other parts of the liberal agenda --- gun control, amnesty and gay rights.
I’ll believe Reagan’s own words rather than your interpretation of them.
>>>>Believe what you like. <<<<
I’ll bekieve the truth.
\\\ My point was, Giuliani has defined himself as a liberal for his entire political career/////
Do you have a quote?
Like I said, we’ll get you the adjoining room next to Ron Paul. You guys can “relax” together and have a giggle over President Hillary Clinton and how people like you played such a key role in elevating her to that position.
Congrats on sticking to your “conservative principles” as you placed your nation in grave long term, and potentially short term, peril all because you couldn’t see the obvious difference between Clinton and Rudy in the arena of foreign policy.
When she wins in 2008, I’ll remember to “thank” the “real” conservatives like you.
And I’ll think the same of people like you who tried to force a RINO down the throats of the rest of the party. You nominate Rudy, we lose, and we all suffer. Of course, I think a very persuasive case can be made that a socialist with an R next to his name can cause a lot more damage than Hillary would.
All of it can be averted by nominating a conservative as the Republican party standard bearer, instead of an abortion supporting, gun grabbing, open border liberal. Your choice. You make your bed, you lie in it.
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.