Rudy Giuliani Attacked Over 9/11
Episode One: The Left Fires Up Its Historical Airbrush
By streiff Posted in 2008 — Comments (44) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It didn’t take a genius to see this coming.
There is a full court press out on the left to destroy Rudy Giuliani as a potential presidential nominee.
I’m not a Giuliani fan. His social views and sordid personal life would make it impossible for me to support him in a primary election though he will still be more conservative and restrained than any Democrat likely to emerge as a candidate.
What the left is attempting is to destroy Giuliani based on his performance on September 11, 2001.
Read on.
The first shot in this battle was fired, as far as I can tell, with the publication of Without Precedent by former 9/11 Commission chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton. This book purports to be a behind the scenes look at one of the greatest travesties ever foisted off on the American public and the American political process. (As an aside, my first diary on RedState concerned how certain conclusions made by the Commission were simply not supportable by their own facts.)
While flogging the book, Tom Kean claimed:
Chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission, when they released their book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission," said last week that they restrained themselves from asking tougher questions of Mr. Giuliani for fear of tainting his post-9/11 image.
"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," they wrote. "We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record."
One will note that allegedly not asking tough questions to Giuliani bothers Kean more than having Jamie Gorelick on the Commission and not asking her questions at all.
Now a new book has appeared which in the words of New York Daily News columnist Errol Lewis:
he images and their accompanying story line are, by now, the stuff of legend, seared into memory. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a lame-duck local pol, becomes the take-charge, already prepared leader of a stunned city and nation on Sept. 11, 2001, striding through the streets of lower Manhattan with his top commanders to rescue, rally and reassure the populace.
Five years later, Giuliani is a pop-culture superhero ("I didn't have time to be afraid, Oprah") and has unabashedly converted 9/11 into wealth, fame and a shot at the White House.
But a new exhaustively researched and unsentimental peek behind the mythology strongly suggests that Giuliani and his top deputies committed many errors that did grave, even fatal, harm to citizens, emergency responders and recovery teams before, on and after that terrible day. Investigative reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins, the co-authors of "Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11," think the time has come for the public to trade in myth for some hard, uncomfortable truths.
I don’t think anyone has claimed everything went swimmingly on 9/11 in New York, but when one considers Giuliani’s performance in the face of an unforeseen catastrophe with that of, say, Chicago’s Michael Bilandic or Washington’s Marion dealing with low level discomfort like snow storms or that of New Orleans’ Ray Nagin confronting a predictable and predicted disaster one has to be impressed.
And it really is Giuliani’s performance on that day which should be the issue. Not issues like fire and police communications, etc. It isn’t like those difficulties arose on Giuliani’s watch, they hadn’t been problems in the past, and, in all fairness, Giuliani had had bigger fish to fry in his tenure as mayor. Like making the city livable and governable and bringing businesses back into Manhattan. In fact, Giuliani’s actions served to mitigate what could have been complete chaos had the system worked as designed.
One has to suspect that books about Giuliani’s marriage are in the wings. And we’ll probably read more of the allegations that his father was a mobster. I don’t care. To some these stories may make a difference, to most they won’t.
9/11 is different. This strikes at that core of Giuliani’s unique selling proposition for the presidency. Defending Giuliani is not the issue here. We’ve already seen what crass historical revisionism the left is capable of in their hijacking of the stories of the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in the Iran-Iraq War, and even in the ongoing Iraq war.
Whether the various memes these books seek to launch take hold is up to us. If we accept them our very history will be changed by the left in the same way they airbrushed the purged out of the photos of May Day parades.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | We Are the New Deciders — Comments (17) »
Rudy Giuliani Attacked Over 9/11 44 Comments (0 topical, 44 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The huge advantage that Rudy has over all other Republican potential candidates is that he puts New York State in play. Without New York, Democrats don't have a prayer of gaining an electoral majority, no matter who they run.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
But could Giuliani pull Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin - all of which have been close wins for the Dems in 2000 and 2004 - over to the GOP? That is a definite yes - even if he is the Vice-Presidential nominee.
The GOP hole in NY may be too deep, but Rudy could definitely take NJ's 15 electoral votes, which the Ds can't spare.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Perhaps, but the lower-hanging fruit is in Michigan (18 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes), New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) and Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes).
Just having Giuliani on the ticket would put those states into the Republican column. Game, set, and match.
more red than blue, but it is probably a more Guliani style red than a Bush style red-although NH did go Bush in 2000 and 2004 was still pretty close. I think one thing about NH is that there is a general discomfort with the Iraq war, and has been that way almost the whole time-even when support was still fairly high.
NH is an odd state-it really is a sort of red state mentality in the midst of a bunch of true blue-I would say that NH swings between red and blue, because it is a bit more of a libertarian philosophy overall than really conservative or liberal.
But I don't think it would take much to get NH to swing red again, if the GOP chooses the right candidate, especially when you consider all the senators and congress members are GOP (although I loath Charlie Bass, who is definitely IMO a good example of a RINO).
he just needs to be competitive so the D's have to spend money there. Same for CA.
Money spent in NY/CA and the like can't be spent elsewhere.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
If the election were held today, yes, you're right. He'd hold a lot of Republicans who rate the war highly, and he'd get a lot of pro-abortion people, too.
But one thing the primary and election processes do, is run candidates with a fine-toothed comb. The primaries find things that the general election opponents will use to tear the candidates down.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Keep an eye on Rudy as this stuff begins to bubble. He'll take the blame where blame is due, acknowledging that he could have done a better job on this or that aspect of a very tough time, it was all but a war after all.
If his team handles things right, Rudy G. will come out of any criticism by the left even stronger by taking it head on. Something Kerry or any of lesser lights of the Democratic party can't or won't do.
Rudy, like any mayor in any city, is supposed to be a chief exec of sorts. All do some of it well, many do most of it poorly. When the proverbial excrement hits the fan, a simple few step up and try their human best to lead. Rudy did that.
To stir up minutae now, especially to muddy those particular waters in the run up to the anniversary of 9/11 shows the degree of desperation. They have plenty of time before the Prez. primaries..now couldn't be more poorly timed. The shrill is deafening.
You are absolutely spot on about one thing, Streiff...it is up to us to counter this at every turn. Whatever else may or may not be sacred, 9/11 needs to stay out of the hands of opportunists...from ALL sides.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
Giuliani would make an excellent President. Smart, sharp, economically conservative, sophisticated.
Proud to be gay, conservative, pro-choice, hard core libertarian, respectful of the real differences that exist between people.
In a city where Democrats outrank Republicans 5-1, he still has a huge approval rating and people still see him as having been a guiding light on that horrible day. He didn't give himself the name "Americas Mayor". I don't think other mayors could have handled the unforseeable attack as well as he.
it's a great point to emphasize. democrats, after all, elected rudy giuliani in the first place. why? because david dinkins, rudy's democrat predecessor (who defeated rudy in the previous election) nearly ran the city into the ground without the aid of a terrorist attack.
i always thank every democrat i know in new york for electing rudy whenever they try to malign him.
As a NYer I can say that Guiliani cleaned this city up like no one else could have. He made NYC livable again.
Wow, that's high risk. Usually Minitrue follows the Disney principle. They hold the re-release until a new crop of young 'uns comes along who didn't see the movie the first time.
To try this now is pretty cheeky. Who's the target market, Rip Van Winkle? Is there anyone old enough to vote who didn't see these events live? Will people believe the Ministry of Truth or their own lying eyes?
Our friends on the left will undoubtedly parrot this stuff to the point of being annoying, but I wonder if this isn't one of those times when we should just sit back and let them destroy themselves. They increasingly appear to be insane. This has not been helping them at the polls. Maybe we should let it be.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Is that the delusionals on the left are not surprising at all.
All they can do is to rewrite history and to play Monday morning quarterback.
People with no vision must rely on hindsight. No one in American history has less vision than the modern lefties. No one is more fixated on redefining the past to make sure their opponents look bad.
The 911 commission was nothing except a sorry attempt to rewrite history. What party has candidates who vote for something before they vote against it? What party highjacked the historic, effective lifesaving response to Katrina and turned it into a national embarassment and sick racist game? What party is shamelessly using the same talking points as our war time enemies? As always, when one is looking for backbiting and infighting, one looks to the left and sees democrats doing all of this and more.
It really gets me when either side does this. Whether it's trying to taint Kerry's awards for bravery during vietnam or McCain's sacrifice and service or now Giuliani's performance during 9/11, this is the lowest kind of politics. But Bush did it to McCain, then to Kerry, others did it to Murtha, and now the democrats do it to Guiliani.
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison
You have found some evidence linking Bush to attacks on McCain and Kerry? That will please the liberal blogosphere no end.
By the way, when you were at it, did you discover any evidence that the one clear, dishonest, dirty trick of the 2004 election, the forging of documents to discredit Bush, was ordered by John Kerry?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
You are dealing in Known Facts™. These are "facts" which you believe to be true, but which we know to be either unsupported, or contradicted, by actual events.
We tire quickly of Known Facts™. They have been debunked so many times that we do not wish to waste any more time on them. We especially do not want perfectly good threads sent off on long tangents by people who insist that we debate Known Facts™ that were proven to be otherwise years ago.
Your choices are: place your Known Facts™ in a secure place where the Solar Wind does not blow; or expect to be banned without further ado.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
is comparing "tree ripened apples" to rotten fruit that's been on the ground for a month.
Aside from Kerry's dubious (being kind) record in Vietnam, his very questionable war record, his absolute refusal to PUBLICALLY release his military records, you have his pathetic record as a US Senator. Murtha is a doddering old fool, he's never met a military conflict he couldn't find a reason to run from and his only contribution to matters military is to skim money from the defense budget for the family firm. Both of these b*****ds run like scalded dogs from their actual record and neither have any accomplishments that could be rated as worthwhile.
Rudy is a very competent former mayor who has big time blemishes on his personal record but has real accomplishments in office to run on. Unlike the other two, he will confront his issues head on and will take responsibility for his mistakes and shortcomings.
Is he perfect? Far from it. Is he better than a traitor or a doddering old fool who are both trying to stretch their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of men whose boots their not fit to clean? Absolutely. Rudy is a good example that even Americans with feet of clay can succeed. The other two are proof that some people just have no sense of shame.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Of course, when you count some of the other episodes, like associating Bush with the Texas dragging murder (Campaign 2000), the election eve surprise of his drunk driving arrest in 1976 (Campaign 2000), the fake National Guard records (Campaign 2004), it doesn't look so one-sided.
I didn't like the attacks on Kerry's military service. But his actions AFTER he came home are absolutely legitimate targets for scrutiny.
By the way, Kerry has to be one of the stupidest politicians to come down the pike in a long time. Who else could have:
- said he voted for the $87 billion before voting against it
- converted his military service into a liability by that ridiculous salute at the Democratic convention
- criticized Bush for "faith without works" before a nation that is 2/3 Protestant. That must have gone over BIG with adherents of the Reformation.
Just how many chapters of 9/11 Commission blather is the public still itching to read? I think everyone and their dog has figured out that we weren't prepared for Satan's unwelcome visit that day.
traitorous, individually inferior and just not very bright pretty well sums up the Left. Revisionist history is not surprising, for them it is a necessity.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I seem to remember the right starting this sort of thing. Remember the trashing of McCain's service that Bush did duriong the 2000 election? Or how about Kerry's medals of honor during the 2004 campaign? That's revisionist history too, and it started with you guys. Take the log out of your eye.
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
It was someone at RedState that did it? A moment ago it was the President. Does he blog here? Do you just make everything up as you go along? Were there no dirty campaign tactics prior to 2000?
Please teach us everything you know.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
No, you did not say it. And that leads me to my main point. You are republicans, but you aren't responsible for those nasty attacks back then. The democrats are no more responsible for these attacks on Guiliani. I don't think either side approves of this sort of thing, but the politicians on both sides do it anyway. Yours and ours. And I think we both agree that it is a rotten strategy.
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison
What 'we guys' are would be bloggers. There is no requirement on anyone here to be a Republican. I gather you are not.
So Republicans are not responsible for all criticisms that have ever been made of John Kerry? I thought you said President Bush was responsible? (He, by the way, IS a Republican. You can be pretty safe saying that).
There is a reason for the plethora of attack ads. The reason is McCain-Feingold. There are limits on how much can be spent saying "Vote for X" but no limit on the amount that can be spent saying "Don't vote for Y". As long as these limits are in place, you will see a great many people making negative adverts.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I didn't mean to imply that a republican wasn't responsible, I meant to say that republicans in general aren't responsible. And of course you aren't all republicans, but I thought it was safe to assume that many of the people I was responding to might be (with a site name like redstate ;)). My main point was that this sort of contemptable mudslinging and revising of history isn't exclusively republican or democrat, as has been implied. I'm a democrat, but I'm no terrorist loving revisionist history spewing cowardly, treasonous hate monger.
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison
1. Do you believe George W Bush was personally responsible for dirty tricks against any of his opponents?
2. Do you believe John Kerry was personally responsible for forging of documents trashing Bush's reputation?
3. Do you favour the repeal of McCain-Feingold in the light of its effect on negative campaigning?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
You mean the twit that shot himself so he could come home early and betray his country? That Kerry? The Spandex Hero who stretched the truth until it broke? The guy who would have waived his shorts as a white flag but couldn't because they weren't? Kerry has no medals, he tossed them back as part of his journey to treason.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You prove my point beautifully.
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison
is not a river in Egypt.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
But if I recall, he meant this comment.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
potential GOP candidate, because he has a pretty wide appeal, ending his possible bid for the presidency before it starts is a good move on their part.
He has certain aspects that appeal to me-I don't think I could support him in a primary election-for the same reasons Strieff mentions.
But the DNC is wise to try to take him out before the primary season really begins next year-although Guliani doesn't come across as one to back down under fire, so I suspect he will weather what they shoot his way.
All of them can run rings around any Democrat nominee when it comes to securtiy issues.
I have problems with all of them, but I am glad that our frontrunners have the right mindset when it comes to the GWoT.
His courage under fire, walking in the rubble of the World Trade Center and in the rubble of the liberals' "police paradigm" of dealing with terrorism, is so proven that it will stand up to the character assassins of the left.
As far as his marital issues are concerned, I think the public will be tolerant. They aren't any more problematic than Newt Gingrich's, and much less problematic than Bill Clinton's.
the candidates for either GOP or DNC primaries is going to be pretty hefty. Some of the baggage may vary, but they will all be hefting a pretty good amount.
I suspect in the end the baggage, and attacks from one side on the other sides baggage is going to not matter so much, although my fear is the mud slinging might get fierce enough, that it may turn some voters apathetic, and not interested in a "one is just as bad as the other, lesser of two evils" type vote.
I expect the '08 campaign season to reach some pretty high levels of nastiness, and McCain Feingold isn't going to help matters.
No matter how much of a heretic Giuliani is among social conservatives - he would win the general election for the Presidency in 2008 by a landslide.