Bruce Bartlett thinks so, linking to this pretty damning Village Voice piece punching holes in the central rationale for Rudy Giuliani's presidential candidacy: that he'd be the best man to lead the nation during the long war on Islamic terror. For somebody like me, a big fan of Rudy Giuliani as NYC mayor, it's difficult to read. I'm not supporting Rudy as president because of his social liberalism and because I don't think he has the temperament to be president (that, plus he backs the Iraq War). But unless he's got a good rebuttal to this Wayne Barrett piece -- for example, Rudy idiotically and vainly insisted that the city's crisis command center be placed in the WTC, even though he was warned that doing so would make it vulnerable to terrorism -- he doesn't have much at all to run on regarding anti-terror credentials. He proved on 9/11 and in the aftermath that he's cool and level-headed in a crisis. Which ain't nothing. Still, read the Barrett piece -- it's hard to see what Giuliani has to offer on the terror front aside from that. And he certainly does come off as a phony.
Ross points out that the fact that this piece appears in a doubleplus left-wing NYC newspaper means it will be harder to take seriously than it otherwise might have. He's got a point there, but Wayne Barrett is a serious reporter, and my guess is that these charges will be investigated by more mainstream media now, and get amplified. There's still plenty of time for the NYT to follow in Barrett's footsteps.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Well here's a list of some folks who voted to authorize war with Iraq.....
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
John Edwards
Harry Reid
Joe Biden
And may I ask who you voted for in the November 2004 presidential contest between Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards if being in favor of the Iraq war is such a point of contention? Must have voted for Ralph Nader or sumpin'.
---
You haven't been with us around here long, have you? I voted Bush both times. I favored the war. I believe now I was wrong. I'm not planning to vote Democratic in 2008 because there's too much space between me and the Democrats on other important issues. But on the war, it's not whether or not they voted to authorize it -- a lot of us made the mistake of backing that war -- but on whether or not they want to continue the president's policy. The Repubs -- save Ron Paul -- do.
Bugg: And when the Voice decides to do as huge expose on Al Sharpton, let us know.
Here ya go -- from 2004, and written by the same reporter who did the Rudy hit.
Rod-
And you can see the enormous,far-reaching impact the Village Voice had on Sharpton's career. He's been greatly diminished in Dem circles ever since. Guiliani must be very concerned. seeing the great impact Barrett's Rev Al piece had on Dem deicsionmakers. Clearly this story is A HUGE -NOTHING.
I've had a soft spot for Rudy ever since 9/11. A recent article, not in the Village Voice, but, I think, in Slate, predicted what would happen if Rudy became President. (I don't have the link, and don't recall when I read it.)
Given his somewhat legendary short temper, the author suggested that within a few months of taking office, Rudy would not be on speaking terms with anyone in his cabinet. The author didn't discuss any big lies, but did suggest that Michael Bloomberg has accomplished just as much as Giuliani with less fuss and fanfare. I'll always be grateful for Giuliani's behavior on 9/11, but I'm not backing him for president, because I don't feel his experience in that one crisis qualifies him to be POTUS.
1. Why would the SDNY U.S. Attorney's Office advise Mayor Giuliani on terrorism? Why would you want them to handle that role? Their job is to prosecute, not gather, analyze and disseminate intelligence. That's the job for the FBI, CIA, DIA and units within the NYPD, all of whom I assume routinely brief the Mayor of New York as to terrorist threats. Does the Village Voice really think it is prudent for lawyers to brief the Mayor of New York on matters of anti-terrorism? Yes, I believe they do and I am not surprised.
2. 9/11 was not Giuliani's first successful bout with terrorism. He and the NYPD deftly handled the uzi-attack on the Brooklyn Bridge in March, 1994, a couple of months after taking office (the Lebanese-born terrorist was captured within days). Mayor Giuliani secured many key NY landmarks and brought calm to the city. The Left likes to forget this incident. Imagine if a terrorist lit up a van of students on the Brooklyn Bridge today, post 9/11.
3. I still don't get the ongoing concern about the location of the city's Emergency Response Command Center in WTC-7. It made complete sense to have the command center at that location, within walking distance of City Hall, NYPD HQ, FBI HQ-NY, etc. Why place the command center in Brooklyn when the Brooklyn Bridge and the subways were and still are prime terror targets? How would the Mayor and his staff get to Brooklyn? By boat? Swim? If the 9/11 terrorists had attacked Grand Central station or the stock exchange or the bridges and tunnels or JFK or Penn Station, etc., etc., Mayor Giuliani would have been lauded for his foresight. That is, except by the Village Voice.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.