As Someone Who Lived Through 9/11 . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:08:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yes, I lived through 9/11 too. Oh, Rudy meant he was in NYC during 9/11. So did 8 million other people. But those 8 million people were not the bonehead who put the City's emergency response headquarters in the World Trade Center over the objections of experts - who objected to Rudy's plan because, maybe Rudy did not know this, the WTC was attacked by terrorists in 1993:

"Your director of emergency management suggested, recommended, that you not put it [in the World Trade Center] because it had been a target in 1993. Why did you do that?" asked Wallace.
"My director of emergency management recommended 7 World Trade Center," replied Giuliani.
"I've got a copy right here of Jerry Hauer's directive to you," Wallace came back, "and I -- there were meetings in which Jerry Hauer said that it's a bad idea and the police chief, Howard Safir said it was a bad idea."

As someone who lived through 9/11, I have to question the sanity of the notion that a blustering fool whose only talent is self-promotion and whose most important decision related to 9/11, where to put his command center, was as idiotic as one could imagine, is running for President on the strength of his stupidity. Yes, for it was his stupidity in placing the command center precisely where it was recommended NOT to be that made his endless 9/11 press conferences necessary.

Rudy is a poster boy for the absurdity of politics.

< Sentencing Commission Sends Crack Cocaine Penalty Report to Congress | James Comey Video >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

As Someone Who Lived Through 9/11 . . . | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by buhdydharma on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:27:40 AM EST

Rudy is the poster boy for marital infidelity and cross-dressing in politics.

Ok, he is both!

And SOOOOO much ...less!

: Heh (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 07:32:13 AM EST

: But less is more (none / 0) (#23)
by TexDem on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:01:20 PM EST

more of an @ss, more of a...
And on and on we go.

Dude is more pro choice (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by redfish on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:02:46 AM EST

than I am, that's what will do him in. None of the other repubs is going to give him a bye on that once the serious politiking starts.

Give him a break (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Che's Lounge on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:08:01 AM EST

"Who could have imagined..."

Uh, everyone.

Then there is his authoritarin (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Molly Bloom on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:19:52 AM EST

streak & Bernie Kerik. Need we say more?

: Need we say more? Yes! (none / 0) (#24)
by Alien Abductee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:07:40 PM EST

FERRETS!!

He was a reassuring television presence. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Geekesque on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:45:45 AM EST

Given that a lot of NY'ers were emotionally vulnerable at the time, that he played such a role means that many are going to have an irrationally inflated view of his 'leadership' on that day.

: Many [republicans] (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:58:47 AM EST

are going to have an irrationally inflated view of his 'leadership'
ARG, May 14
National Primary Republicans Mar 2007 Apr 2007 May 2007 Brownback 1% 1% 1% Gilmore 1% - 1% Giuliani 34% 27% 28% Gingrich 12% 10% 13% Hagel 1% 1% 1% Huckabee 1% 1% 1% Hunter - - 1% McCain 30% 23% 24% Pataki 1% - - Paul 1% - 1% Romney 7% 12% 8% Tancredo 1% 1% 1% F Thompson ni 9% 6% T Thompson 1% 1% 1% Undecided 9% 14% 13%
Rudy Giuliani leads among Republicans (86% of likely Republican primary voters) with 29%, followed by John McCain at 20% and Newt Gingrich at 14%. McCain leads among independents with 46%, followed by Giuliani at 21%.

: factually swiftboating that image (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by fairleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:06:05 AM EST

is easy to do and Democrats should do it as often as possible. It's not that his reassuring actions and words on 9/11 should be attacked, it's that '9/11+Rudy+smile' should be muddyed by the facts of his incompetent preparation for a terror attack.

drsteveb on kos, informative post (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by fairleft on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:01:15 AM EST

on Rudy's 9/11 stupidity:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/16/95024/1493

Well trodden path (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by HK on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:16:23 AM EST

[Rudy] is running for President on the strength of his stupidity.

And why not? It worked for Bush. Twice.

Heh (none / 0) (#25)
by TexDem on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:07:46 PM EST

But Shrub was running on the guy you might want to have a beer with. Rudy's running on the guy you'd like to where a dress with?


: Really? Where a dress? (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:55:19 PM EST

Sounds vaguely vulgar to me....

gee... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by RenaRF on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:46:12 AM EST

I was half a mile from the Pentagon as the plane plowed into it. Am I qualified?

: I used to live at riverhouse (none / 0) (#22)
by redfish on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:42:04 AM EST

in pentagon city, could have seen it pass by the window but I'd already moved back to florida by then.

: RenaRF (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:57:56 PM EST

Only if you can claim it was actually a missle with USA stamped on the side.

Rudy wins the 9/11 argument (2.50 / 2) (#4)
by Slado on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:48:55 AM EST

While I respect your opinion BTD it is pointless for dems to attack Rudy for his record on 9/11.

He is enshrined in the opinion of a majority of Americans as a hero for his actions and any time Democrats waste attacking him on this only makes him stronger and wastes time they could be attacking one of his actual faults.

Just free advice. You and fellow democrats don't have to use it.

The fact that his using this as a talking point drives some people so crazy only shows that it's true.

"one of his actual faults" (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:57:13 AM EST

This posat is about one of his actual faults.

What you are saying is Republicans don't care about actual faults. I agree with your assessment.

As for wasting my time, I agree. I do this for sheer enjoyment as I detest Giuliani, not because Rudy has a snowball's chance of being the nominee.

As Charlie Cook says, I'll win the Tour de France before Rudy is the Republican nominee for President.


This is pointless carping IMHO (none / 0) (#27)
by Slado on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:52:58 PM EST

Rudy was not responsible for the two planes that hit the buildings.

To somehow claim that the tragedy was increased becasue he didn't move the command center because he didn't forsee two planes crashing into the WTC is to apply a form of hindsight that won't play to anyone but a partisan critic.

Why don't you apply this standard to everyone who didn't do enough after 1993? Clinton, Reno, Ashcroft, Bush etc...

This sort of hindsight is as bad as republicans saying Clinton should have arrested Osama or Bush should have known that a vague memo predicted the planes.

Both are examples of partisan carping based on 20/20 hindsight.

Both are ridiculous and the average person doesn't buy it.

I though you didn't like swiftboating? Isn't this exactly what you are doing?


: Yes (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:07:34 PM EST

Rudy was not responsible for the two planes that hit the buildings.
Most likely true but Rudy has built his whole business, lecture circuit, and campaign around his heroic leadership after 9/11. It is mostly hype and falsehoods that say more about Rudy's opportunism than his leadership.
He was very unpopular in NYC before 9/11 and exploited the tragedy for personal gain.
He is a fake. So criticizing him about any of his heroic claims and f'ups regarding his ability to make good defense decisions is fair game.

This from Fox says all that needs to be said (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:07:04 AM EST

The aborted terror plot to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey reminds us all of the imminent threat of attack in today's dangerous world. It will remind Republican primary voters that terrorism, and our response to it, is still the issue of the day.
...
But after Fort Dix, the momentum is once again going to shift. Americans realize the narrow escape they have had and understand the importance of having a proven and tested anti-terror leader, as their candidate in the November, 2008 elections.
Rudy's advantage will be further reinforced by Hillary's upward movement in the polls. After three months of going down in the polls, she has suddenly reversed field and gained decisively on Obama and Edwards. The closer Hillary gets to the Democratic nomination, the more decisive Rudy's claim on the GOP nod becomes since he may be the only candidate who can stop Hillary from winning.

Hahahahahaha.

That is from the same Dick Morris who urges Fox viewers occupation of Iraq because he thinks "It's `Convenient' To Keep U.S. Troops In Iraq So Terrorists Can Kill Them `Around The Corner'":

[and] argued that we need to put "Americans right within their [terrorists'] arms' reach" so that they have the opportunity to "kill Americans" there. He added that therefore, "they don't have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans.

Video


: that should read (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:14:56 AM EST

"urges Fox viewers to support the occupation of Iraq"

Without 9/11 (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:17:37 AM EST

Giuliani would not even be in the picture. Slado is correct that it's his strongest point-- by far.

But, the reason for going after him on that is the reality that even marginally weakening one's strong points is a good tactic just as much as more thoroughly weakening one's weak points. Diminishing a person's strong points can also cause people to examine one's weak points more intently and prevents them from getting "a pass" because of the residual benefit of the doubt given due to the strong point.


I agree (none / 0) (#28)
by Slado on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:56:02 PM EST

In theory but you better have the facts on your side.

IMHO the Swifties had lots of facts on their side so the smear or criticism (depending on your point of view) worked to discredit Kerry's use of service as a political plus.

In this case I just don't see this working.

Rudy is again the 9/11 hero and to try and use 20/20 hindsight to discredit him while not applying this same sort of criticism to all the players, Clinton, Bush etc... will not go over well with the average voter.


: There (none / 0) (#40)
by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:17:44 AM EST

is a difference between Giuliani-9/11 and Kerry-Vietnam. I'm not trying to equate the two except in the broadest sense. Kerry's Vietnam service was viewed as a political plus and Giuliani's 9/11 experience is viewed as a political plus, and both have opponents seeking to discredit or diminish.
The "swift-boating" of Kerry worked not only to offset that plus but to a large degree to make it a negative. It is far less likely (nearly impossible in fact) the revisionism of Giuliani-9/11 will work to make his 9/11 role a negative; it is possible it will work to alter the perception enough so that it isn't a strong positive.
The attacks on Kerry's service though almost certainly would not have succeeded if based only on the "facts" of his actual service in Vietnam. They worked because of what Kerry said and did AFTER his tour in Nam. If he had come home and quietly worked as a lawyer then enetered politics, I don't think very many people would have found allegations that he "puffed" a little very interesting or important. It's because he was a vocal war critic after his service that the charges about his service gained any traction.
I also don't think it would have worked without the class issue looming large. Many people, regardless of political bent, like seeing ambitious people born to tremendous advantage chpooed down to size. Bush who was also born to tremendous advantage had the advantage in that he doesn't appear as ambitious or elitist as does Kerry (and he may not have have been as ambitious even if he is easily as elitist in terms of background). Bush also got extremely lucky when his opponents horribly botched the ANG issue; he actually benefitted from the inpetness of his opposition because, at least in my opinion, the "facts" of Kerry's military service versus the "facts" of Bush's military service SHOULD have been an advantage for Kerry.
Point being-- it's not all about the "facts" by any stretch of the imagination. you need some facts but the stronger facts don't necessarily equated to better negative campaigning.

Decon (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:48:48 PM EST

True.

But then we have Big Tent claiming to want to debate based on facts.

I don't mind partisanship, but double standards are a different matter.


BTD (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:12:58 AM EST

You just made a big point in another thread about facts... And then you leave off the facts....

Giuliani said that the World Trade Center made the most sense to house an emergency response center because it also contained the offices of the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and a number of other federal agencies which he did not think he could name on the air.
Giuliani also emphasized that the city had a back up center in a Brooklyn police station that could be set up quickly.
"And we had a virtual command center," he said. "So when that command center was inoperable, within a half hour of September 11, we were able to move -- or within a half hour on September 11, we were able to move immediately to another command center."

Factual is as factual does, eh??

Why (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by ding7777 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:28:02 AM EST

were Federal offices still in the WTC after the 1993 bombing? Just because they didn't move is no reason for Rudy to put the command center there


It's the lemming defense. (none / 0) (#26)
by TexDem on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:11:57 PM EST

They did it, so should we.


ding 777 (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:52:56 PM EST

So do you think we should move the Pentagon? How about a couple of acres or so in Ohio? Pearl Harbor?? And didn't the Brits burn a bit of DC a couple years or so ago??

But I am glad to note that you are ready to attack a DEMOCRAT for something.... Clinton had eight long years, yet he did nothing..

Sigh....


: If Wiki (none / 0) (#41)
by ding7777 on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:07:45 AM EST

coould name the other Federal tenents, why couldn't Rudy?
WTC #6
United States Department of Commerce
BAFT
AAPHIS
United States Department of Labor
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
WTC #7
IRS Rgional Council
United States Secret Service
Federal Home Loan Bank
Immigration and Naturalization Service
The Department of Defense (DOD)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
How many of these are Command Center/1st responders?

: a$$holes and oranges (none / 0) (#42)
by Sailor on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:23:34 AM EST

So do you think we should move the Pentagon?
this commenter is apparently unable to understand the difference between a highly guarded gov't building devoted to the military and on it's own plot of land and commercial space open to the public in downtown NYC.

You think (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:28:51 AM EST

that helps Rudy? No kidding.


of course! (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Sailor on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:54:05 AM EST

Giuliani said that the World Trade Center made the most sense to house an emergency response center because it also contained the offices of the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and a number of other federal agencies which he did not think he could name on the air.

Brilliant, it's the 'all the eggs in one basket' aproach to security!

"... we were able to move immediately to another command center."

a command center that couldn't communicate on others' radio freqs.

And still can't.

And quoting the moron trying to defend himself is not 'factual.', it's CYA.


Stupid is as stupid does... (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:05:08 PM EST

Uh... Let's see. Who assigns frequencies??

The FCC.

Now what is the FCC?

A Federal agency..

Now who had headed up the Federal Government for the 8 years of the previous 8 years and about 8 months..Bill Clinton!!!

And yes. That is stupid. Just as stupid as it is to claim Rudy was in the wrong place, etc.


moronic (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by Sailor on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:34:25 PM EST

fcc assigns freqs, then departments buy radios that can use those freqs. If you want to receive the FM band you don't buy an AM radio. If you need both you buy an AM/FM radio. (Sorry for the oversimplification, but I had to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator.)

Not even the NYFD likes rudy.


: Big Understatement (5.00 / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:00:12 PM EST

Not even the NYFD likes rudy
They hate the guy.

DA (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:00:48 PM EST

See my 2:52 note to ding777.