The Village Voice and Rudy

Matt and Bruce Bartlett both link to this VV takedown of Rudy Giuliani's (not-so?) heroic role in 9/11. Bruce suggests that the article "has been totally ignored by conservative bloggers" (to be fair, Ramesh linked to it on the Corner), while Matt writes:

The attack seems like it could, in principle, be very damaging. But coming from liberals it almost seems to me to help Rudy, whose campaign seems to be premised in part on the idea that if Village Voice writers hate him so much, he must be doing something right. I feel like these kind of stories would need to appear in National Review to draw blood. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of how Hillary Clinton's conservative detractors are her primary campaign's best friend.

No doubt such a story would draw the most blood if it appeared in NR, but really, it would draw more blood, or at least attract more right-wing attention, if it appeared almost anywhere other than the Village Voice. I'm no great Rudy booster, but I'm much, much more likely to take this kind of story with a grain of salt because it appears in an extremely left-wing alternative weekly (but I repeat myself) that did nothing but bash Hizzoner, sometimes fairly but usually not, throughout his mayoralty. Forget NR: There's a whole world of more mainstream liberal publications that would lend far more credibility to a story like this, and that would be happy, I would imagine, to run a devastating takedown of Giuliani's "hero of 9/11" reputation. And so fairly or not, the fact that it didn't run in the Times Magazine or Time or Newsweek or The New Republic or Vanity Fair or Esquire or almost anywhere else makes me automatically inclined to approach it with more skepticism that it may deserve.

Comments

I understand your position. I suppose I do the same in some cases. For instance, I don't believe a word that comes out of the mouths of Bush or Cheney.

But since the Voice story is entirely consistent with everything we know of Rudy's shabby character, what's not to believe? His decision to place the command center in the WTC was idiocy - if it also happened to be Viagra-enhanced idiocy, why would anyone be surprised?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 6:29 PM

"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. [1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Posted by Ashish George | August 11, 2007 7:29 PM

Good show, Ashish George.

This post is to be commended for its honesty and relative level-headedness, but it illustrates the problems with the closing of the conservative mind. They evaluate facts and arguments based on their perceived political correctness, rather than whether or not they are, you know, true.

I might be more sympathetic if the article alleged something totally out of left field. But it's long been known that Rudy made the disastrous decision to put the terrorism response center in the main target of terrorism. And his petty craving of the spotlight and relationship with the astonishingly corrupt and scandal-prone Bernie Kerik are not new facts brought to light either.

I'm too young to remember the media as it existed before the attacks on the "liberal media" gathered steam. But the development of the right-wing paramedia-- what Ross has called the "cocoon"-- has been catastrophic for conservatives.

In conservative-world, anything negative about Republicans should be ignored; all of their many legal troubles are caused by Democratic infiltration and activist judges; global warming isn't real; the war in Iraq is a great idea, beloved by the rest of the world, and is going swimmingly; and that anything that makes liberals mad is, QED, a good thing. A catastrophe for conservatism, and a catastrophe for American policy.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 11, 2007 8:25 PM

Elvis Elvisberg (love it) writes: "In conservative-world, anything negative about Republicans should be ignored; all of their many legal troubles are caused by Democratic infiltration and activist judges; global warming isn't real; the war in Iraq is a great idea, beloved by the rest of the world, and is going swimmingly; and that anything that makes liberals mad is, QED, a good thing. A catastrophe for conservatism, and a catastrophe for American policy."

Not to mention that it's the ideology that let fundamentalism back into the seats of power. I'm older than you, and I recall when biblical literalists were marginal fools. They're still fools, but now they're a major political force. Let's see conservatives try to unwrap THAT python off their necks. How can they claim to fight the extremists of Islam with their 72 virgins and caliphates when their own movement is filled with yammering madmen talking about Rapture and Armageddon? Pat Robertson used to cure hemmorhoids on TV for cash. How did it come to pass that such cretins have a say in Supreme Court appointments?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 8:47 PM

Glenn, try a better alias next time. I really don't think this will have much effect. Wayne
Barrett;s last version of mallorum malleficum
was adapted into James Wood's Rudy with little
or no effect. I remember reading the Village Voice, back when they charged for it (know thy Enemy) and it was an unrelenting attack on Rudy, weeks after week. Answer me this, where would be a
good place to put the ERC; Near One Police Plaza
which was targeted by a follow up plot to WTC #1, along withe Sen. D'Amato, Mubarak, the Diamond District. A whole series of organizations including the Port Authority (that ran the WTC)
was there as well; part of the early lease. There was a failure of immagination, despite the attempt on the Eiffel Tower, the Bojinka Plot, and even Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, and the film "Executive Decision'. Hauer pops up out of no where, and we're supposed to take his bonafides. The reactions of Mayor Bloomberg to the pipe explosion, summer flooding, even the various terror alerts shows he's even less
prepared than Rudy was.

There may be some fallacies in conservative reporting but do they compare with the Times version of Russia relayed by Walter Duranty, the cluelessness of Herbert Matthews being taken in by Castro in '56, the naivete of Schamberg about Cambodia in the early 70s. The outright mal
practice of David Halberstam in pre '64 Vietnam, which was carried over in his self serving "Best & the Brightest". The belief of Raymond Bonner, that the FMLN did represent the future in El Salvador. Tom Friedman almost always blames the US and/or Israel for whatever atrocity Fatah,
Hamas, Hezbollah, Saudi jihadis, Iranian death squads are likely to perpetuate. He did coin
"Hama rules" but he often misunderstands the consequences of that phraseology with regards to Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, et al. Krugman, being taken in by a fake trading floor at Enron, so he says
"that Enron will be more significant that 9/11"
Attention, Professor, there is such thing as a
business cycle, it runs 8-10 years; that's not
paricularly eyecatching although it happens to be true. Maureen Dowd, is very talented as a fiction
writer; but the columns supposed to deal in facts.
On the crime beat, David Barstow (now in Iraq)taking the word of drug dealers, as to the effectiveness of Rudy's crime plans, Todd Purdum's and Robert Pear's evisceration of anything to do with Welfare Reform; those are jusr some examples from the 1990s. Later there's Damien Cave, who floated the draft rumors in 2004; now in Iraq, How can one forgot the El Salvador abortion ban that had to be retracted; the & wounded raped female Iraqi vet that hadn't been in Iraq or wounded; but the story was printed despite they had a week to disprove it.
(Shades of Beauchamp) I know you will say; but Jusith Miller, she was taken in by Chalabi. . .
evil neocon. . .Cheney, please put it away. She
had a decade and a half of contacts in the Middle
East, and in the NBC/intelligence community, .

Let's not even mention CNN's bowing and scraping for the Castro regime with Lucia Newman, the hagiography of Saddamm by Eason Jordan, the deference granted to the Russian ruling classes in the 1980s etc by Ted' don't call it foreign, it's international' Turner; MSNBC is really the
Kos/ Air America network; hey some one's got to
employ them, Fox is not perfect, they linger too
much on the Jessica/Anna/ OJ/ Holloway; that's
their Hearstian side, but they do on occasion
give a different perspective. Oh do we need reinding of this very publication's own "Japan's going to take over the world" so we must go industrial policy by Fallows; back in the late
80s.

My own local paper, the Herald is not immune in this; it features reporters who leak Aardwolf's
and other classified documents on a general basis.
Reports of Iranian influences, as an argument to
counter act them. One of the most ridiculous reports was about how Iraqi gardeners were upset with the American presence in Iraq; we get it, we
're evil and we blend kittens (wait that's the
other Glenn 's job. Columns include at least one
9/11 denialist, fmr CIA analyst turned liberation
theologist Ray McGovern, far too many Pat Buchanan
columns; maybe he really did much better in South Florida, than we thought) And it doesn't get any better under the McClatchy label.

Posted by narciso | August 11, 2007 9:26 PM

Man, I hate it when Donnie Rumsfeld gets into the moonshine.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 10:00 PM

The substantive question, not a trivial one, is Giuliani's record in reacting to the terrorist threat. The VV mentions some specifics.
1. That Giuliani wasn't involved in the the Lauro investigation.
2. That the toggle switch story isn't true.
3. That the OEM wasn't set up in reaction to the 1993 WTC attack.
4. That radios weren't interoperable and Giuliani did nothing to make them so.
5. That Hawer favored a Brooklyn site and Giuliani insisted it be in walking range of City Hall.
This is only a partial and rather arbitrary listing. But, the general trustworthiness of the VV aside,
a. which of these items would you dispute?
b. in your estimation, does Giuliani's record show that he's especially prepared to meet the terrorist threat?

Posted by Curious | August 11, 2007 10:30 PM

You know, I have a generally view of Ross as being a smart, honest guy, but then I read shit like this and I honestly can't believe it. It's in the Village Voice so it isn't true-- even though you don't have a single factual complaint against it? Please. This is precisely the problem with conservative reaction to news you don't like. Rather than trying to assimilate it and react to new information, the action is always to deny, deny, deny, regardless of a story's actual veracity. It has short term value, but in the long run it is slowly eating away at your side's ability to adapt to rapidly changing world.

I mean, honestly. Ashish George kicked your ass with a straight quotation from Wikipedia. This is high school newspaper stuff.

Posted by Freddie | August 11, 2007 11:21 PM

Wow. I take this sort of personally because I was downtown on 9/11. Anyone who suggests that the city wasn't willing to follow Giuliani into Hades three days later is a liar. The preparedness of the firefighters' walkie-talkies and the location of the OEM may have been unhelpful, but I saw VERY liberal people moved to tears by Giuliani's rallying appearances in the days after the attack. There was a deep consensus that Rudy was the only guy we could trust, and it wasn't because anyone told us so. It was because it really felt that way. In short, he was presidential. I am a very conservative Roman Catholic, so I won't be voting for Rudy, but I won't deny his leadership in those days. It was remarkable.

Posted by Aaron | August 11, 2007 11:24 PM

Aaron, just about any politician would have behaved just as Rudy did. People were also 'moved to tears' by Bush's post 9/11 appearances. That hardly translates into an endorsement of either man as a good leader for the long term. Subsequent events proved Bush was a worse leader than Pee Wee Herman or Jeffrey Dahmer might have been. And no, I'm not kidding.

I guess your definition of "presidential" is "making the right cooing noises during public wakes." Sorry, but that's just not good enough.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 11, 2007 11:31 PM

So, because it was reported in the Village Voice, the content of the story must be ignored.

Move along, folks. Nothing here.

Posted by Al Whassizname | August 11, 2007 11:39 PM

I was pretty shaken up on the twelfth. I had to check into a hotel because my apartment on E 9th St. was full of smoke. My brother who was barred from his apartment in Tribeca crashed with me. I needed to hear cooing noises, I guess. So I I agree with you about what being Presidential means. And I think that has tremendous value. It is these cooing noises that have inspired some of the world's greatest moments. Perhaps I am a sucker for the great-man theory. As I said, I'm not voting for the guy, but if you can't see his value as a war leader than you weren't paying attention to NY politics in the weeks after 9/11. He was viewed by almost everyone in NY as a demigod.

Posted by Aaron | August 12, 2007 12:18 AM

demigod? umm, not quite. it was more of a grudging, "yeah, rudy stepped up" kind of thing. and he did step up, credit where credit is due. but he didn't do anything any reasonably competent leader (i.e. not g.w. bush) wouldn't have done. it was nice at the time to have the city's mayor, someone, step up but it wasn't anything more than that. what makes you think anyone who was mayor on 9/11 wouldn't do the same? the "great man" theory is all very well, but if that's all it takes, you are one hell of a cheap date, aaron.

Posted by zafar | August 12, 2007 4:03 AM

Aaron, I think you need to grow up and get over your need for a Big Daddy who makes you feel all cuddly. And it's really awful that you had to move and all that... but then 4 million Iraqis have been displaced as a result of boneheaded post-9/11 moves by another one of your Great Leaders, and you feel nothing for them at all. I'm tired of adults acting like 5 year olds, Aaron, and I'm really tired of infantile goobers running my country. Grow a spine and learn how to deal with relatively minor adversity. Just be glad you're not a victim of your own Great Leaders.

Want cooing noises? Raise pigeons.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 12, 2007 4:22 AM

I take this sort of personally because I was downtown on 9/11.

The idea that physical proximity to the attacks on the World Trade Center-- which, may I remind you, were only part of the carnage that day-- somehow gives you an understanding or ownership of 9/11 that others don't have is just totally intellectually bankrupt. I am really, really tired of people from New York acting like 9/11 is somehow more resonant, or meaningful, or emotionally damaging for them. No one owns 9/11, and the idea that just being physically close to the attacks means you have more authority to expound on their meaning, or on a presidential election that takes place 7 years later, is lunacy.

Enough.

Posted by Freddie | August 12, 2007 8:58 AM

ML&J and Freddie:

Wow. I can see that I touched a nerve. Why are you guys so weirdly threatened by the emotional resonance of 9/11? Do you think it undercuts the chances of a democratic candidate for president?

Posted by Aaron | August 12, 2007 9:53 AM

Why are you guys so weirdly threatened by the emotional resonance of 9/11?

I am not threatened by the emotional resonance of 9/11. I am offended by the appropriation of a tragic event as fuel for the self-obsession of New Yorkers. You are disgracing 9/11 by using it is yet another vehicle for your own psychological satisfaction. You have no "emotional resonance" that the rest of us don't have, and you certainly have no privileged or empowered position to leverage your political or historical arguments. New York doesn't own 9/11, and the way in which New Yorkers have tried to make the attacks yet another brick in the wall of New York self-importance is shameful.

Posted by Freddie | August 12, 2007 10:08 AM

Does this principle apply to all witnesses of traumatic events or just 9/11? Does someone who sees a car accident tend to be more affected than the person who reads about it in the paper? Is my experience of the war in Iraq equal to an Army veteran of the war? BTW, I don't want psychological satisfaction. I just want to help explain the allure of Rudy Giuliani as a candidate. You seem very insecure about this issue.

Posted by Aaron | August 12, 2007 10:16 AM

"what makes you think anyone who was mayor on 9/11 wouldn't do the same?"

Two words: Ray Nagin

Posted by Aaron | August 12, 2007 11:07 AM

More Wiki:

Regardless of the source of the trauma, the experience has four common traits: it was unexpected, it was psychologically overwhelming, the person was unprepared or unable to cope with it, and there was nothing the person felt they could do to prevent or mitigate it. It is thus, not the event per se that determines whether an experience is traumatic, but the subjective experience of that person.

Bakhtin refers to something similar when he speaks of "shattering one's apperception." Kuhn has defined the phenomenon broadly, as "paradigmatic crisis." Pinker highlights the same thing when he talks about how "cutting a loaf of bread with a glass of water" makes a child stare much longer than normal, as she tries and fails to assimilate the visual information into her ordering theories of the world.

In such a state of crisis, the human mind is wide open. Nature abhors a vacuum, and human nature doubly so. When events conspire to reveal the underlying chaos of the world, the mind will latch onto any signals of explanation and order -- subjectively magnifying them, etc.

This is simply what happens, which means that in a way Giuliani's detractors are right: any mayor after 9/11 would have had his leadership qualities magnified in the public mind, assuming he had any to begin with. Nevertheless, while this certainly had an effect on how people perceived Giuliani and should be taken into account, it can also be true that Giuliani acquitted himself very well. The two premises are not inherently antagonistic.

I watched the whole thing on T.V., so I can't claim an authentic perspective. However, to me Giuliani seemed quite effective and capable during the crisis, in a better-than average way.

Posted by JA | August 12, 2007 11:27 AM

It is unfair to attack an argument because of who makes it. Arguments are good or bad regardless of whoever makes them. However, it is not unfair to be skeptical of alleged facts because of their source, especially when the source has a history of getting it wrong before.

Posted by Thursday | August 12, 2007 12:33 PM

Thursday wrote: "However, it is not unfair to be skeptical of alleged facts because of their source, especially when the source has a history of getting it wrong before."

Which is why we should all be highly skeptical of anything Bush, Cheney, or any Iraq war supporter says about the war at this point. One would think they would start to question themselves, but apparently they're too busy "emotionally resonating" with themselves.

I wonder if they reach for a tissue when they're done, uh, resonating.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 12, 2007 1:46 PM

Aaron, I agree with you about Giuliani's speeches after 9/11. Here's what I wrote about this a few months ago; I've turned more anti-Rudy in the meantime, because I believe he is basing his persona and candidacy on a twisted, poorly considered reaction to 9/11:

I knew some people in NYC who had really disliked Giuliani, and who came, in the hours and months after the attack, to respect and admire his dignified presence.

He handled the situation he faced maybe as well as any political leader has faced any situation in our country's history.

Those responsibilities at the time were largely stagecraft, not policy decisionmaking.

And there were previous policy decisions that Rudy made-- involving, particularly, the location of the city's terrorism response center-- that are be valid targets of criticism.

It never seemed, to me, to be a great use of time or energy to have a huge public discussion about the pros and cons of Giuliani's decisions and leadership. He did some things wrong, but it seemed churlish and irrelevant to spend time digging up his mistakes.

But now he's not just helping NYC get back on its feet, he's running for president, in part on the good will that we have for the way he handled himself after the attacks.

There has to be reexamination of his record, and accountability for mistakes he did make in setting up NYC terrorism and emergency response before the attacks happened.

I'm just not sure that his overall performance-- even on the terrorism issue-- is one that would make us want to make him president. CErtainly he's a person with some great skills, and it's great for everyone if he is able to use them for the public good. But as president? It's just not clear to me that that's where he's best utilized.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 12, 2007 2:27 PM

ML&J:

I can practically hear your voice cracking. Why are you so oddly hysterical? Take a deep breath. No one said anything about supporting the Iraq war. We're just talking about Rudy Giuliani here. I thought his leadership was impressive in the days after 9/11. Thats it.

Count to ten . . . feleing better? OK. Now go apologize to your mommy for using such nasty language.

Posted by Aaron | August 12, 2007 4:59 PM

Sounds like you're the one who counted to ten Aaron. You dialed down your Rudy hyberbole a few notches. You started out calling his leadership the work of a "demigod" and ended up saying he was merely "impressive."

Much better.

Posted by felix | August 12, 2007 5:16 PM

The one thing I thought was truly damaging to Guiliani from this story was the heavily-sourced revelation that Guiliani's primary criteria for putting the Emergency Command Center in the WTC was "walking distance" from City Hall, despite the fact that his OEM chief recommended a much better site in Brooklyn and despite the fact that "walking distance" is not a legitimate criteria in any way. So this is utterly clueless at best, and criminal negligence at worst. The story also implies that Guiliani selected this location in part so he could have secret liaisons with his girlfriend there, but I'm not sure what to believe about that.

Any way you slice it, Guiliani was incredibly irresponsible in putting the Emergency Command Center in the WTC, and that destroys his entire credibility on the terrorism issue, apart from his admittedly heroic and inspiring appearances in the days immediately following 9/11. But, to my mind, Guiliani is a deeply unserious national security candidate.

Posted by Korha | August 12, 2007 5:38 PM

Aaron writes: "ML&J:

I can practically hear your voice cracking. Why are you so oddly hysterical? Take a deep breath. No one said anything about supporting the Iraq war. We're just talking about Rudy Giuliani here. I thought his leadership was impressive in the days after 9/11. Thats it.

Count to ten . . . feleing better? OK. Now go apologize to your mommy for using such nasty language. "

Which "nasty language" was that, chuckles?

It's not my fault you want to climb up on Rudy's lap just because he made your widdle self feel better when you had to sleep in strange bed for a few days after 9/11. If you'd actually suffered a real loss on that day you'd probably be trying to figure out a way to bear his children.

Rudy gained respect from many people after 9/11, but he should have lost it when he made the most craven move at the 2004 GOP convention with his "thank god George W. Bush is president" nonsense. Judge Rudy by the totality of his career. He's an autocratic opportunist who would sell his mother's kidneys for an election.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 12, 2007 5:48 PM

Let's put it this way, Ross. Do you think it's a good idea for the GOP to be running a candidate who is, sooner or later, going to face the following question from legions of reporters:

"When you were cheating on your then-wife with your then-girlfriend Judi Nathan, did you or did you not have sex with her in the bedroom you had built for yourself inside the city's Emergency Operations Center in the World Trade Center?"

There's just not going to be much left of the image of Rudy holding a bullhorn on the smoking rubble, once the voters start thinking about him screwing his girlfriend in the building.

Posted by brooksfoe | August 13, 2007 2:35 AM

aaron, stop being deliberately obtuse. ray nagin? is that the bar? ok, let me rephrase: what did rudy do that any reasonably competent mayor would not have done? happy, now?

incidentally, i lived in nyc and saw the towers come down before my own eyes (i actually worked on the 59th floor of tower one until ten months before 9/11), and, yes, rudy showed some game then, no doubt ... but that's a far cry from earning the kind of fellatiory adulation you bestow on him. felix nailed it.

Posted by zafar | August 13, 2007 6:41 AM

What's really telling is that Ross considers Time and Newsweek to be "mainstream liberal publications"

Posted by Dan Miller | August 13, 2007 9:35 AM

The one thing I thought was truly damaging to Guiliani from this story was the heavily-sourced revelation that Guiliani's primary criteria for putting the Emergency Command Center in the WTC was "walking distance" from City Hall, despite the fact that his OEM chief recommended a much better site in Brooklyn

But, of course, putting the thing in Brooklyn is completely idiotic. How is he supposed to get there - swim?

And really, wondering why Rightwingers don't take a Village Voice article on Rudy more seriously is akin to wondering why the Lefties don't take Ann Coulter's books on Hillary seriously.

Posted by Al | August 13, 2007 11:29 AM

The "MSM" wouldn't publish something like this - no matter how factual, how well sourced and how already well documented, (Barnett's Grand Illusion ain't exactly a new book) - because to tear down the 9/11 "St. Rudy" myth is to be anti-American, anti-troop and pro-terrorist. Hyperbole? Hardly. When rescue workers were (rightfully) pissed when Rudy recently claimed he was in the trenches just like the folks digging through the rubble, one of his attack dogs (after Rudy "officially" apologized) stated that by attacking Rudy for these insenstive and inaccurate (ie - false) comments, these silly firefighters and other rescue workers don't understand the true threat of terrorism.

Huh?

Anyway, the so-called liberal media still pisses in their pants at the threat of being call un-American or - heaven forbid! - liberal...even if what they report is 100% accurate. And that's why the Voice (or in a book) is the only place you'll likely see the unveiling of the true Rudy.

Posted by OGLiberal | August 13, 2007 11:36 AM

wondering why Rightwingers don't take a Village Voice article on Rudy more seriously is akin to wondering why the Lefties don't take Ann Coulter's books on Hillary seriously.

Well, except this article is specific, factual, and carefully documented. See the post above by Curious for more detail.

I think it's fair to compare Ann Coulter to Lyndon LaRouche, in terms of their grounding in reality and their use of rhetoric (I don't know LaRouche super well, so maybe this is unfair to one of them).

The situation here is more like a liberal rolling his eyes rather than responding to an argument made by, say, William F. Buckley. Yeah, you know which way he's going to come out on most things, but he has reasons, and debating him will help clarify points of agreement and disagreement.

Or you can just ignore facts you don't like.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 13, 2007 11:59 AM

Umm, Brooklyn is right over the Brooklyn Bridge from City Hall. You could drive over the bridge and be at Metrotech in just a few minutes. Or you could take a subway from the City Hall station and be at the Metrotech stop in a few minutes as well. There's also a well-known and frequently used pedestrian walkway over the bridge...a longer walk than to the WTC, yes, but not that much longer. Or how about a police boat?

But what if the bridge was out? Well, there's also the nearby Manhattan and W'Burg bridges that would get you there almost as quickly. Well, what if they're all out? If that's the case, then NYC would be in a heap of trouble that even the best command center wouldn't help fix. And this same argument could be made about a command center placed within a complex that is/was the biggest terrorist target in the Northeast. O wait, Rudy did put it there. And it was inaccessible, almost immediately after the attacks. And, in fact, it ultimately fell down. (perhaps, in part, due to high intesity fires caused by the huge above ground diesel fuel tanks used as a backup power source for the multi-million dollar vanity command center)

Posted by OGLiberal | August 13, 2007 12:30 PM

"I can practically hear your voice cracking. Why are you so oddly hysterical? Take a deep breath. No one said anything about supporting the Iraq war. We're just talking about Rudy Giuliani here. I thought his leadership was impressive in the days after 9/11. Thats it.

Count to ten . . . feleing better? OK. Now go apologize to your mommy for using such nasty language. "

Posted by Aaron

Ahh, yes... memories of USENET. Aaron's next trick will probably be to feign disinterest, and to mock-casually walk to the exit (before closing the door and running).

Posted by Barry | August 13, 2007 1:44 PM

"But, of course, putting the thing in Brooklyn is completely idiotic. How is he supposed to get there - swim?"

Guess where the CURRENT Emergency Command Center is. You know, the one that NYC built after Guiliani's center got destroyed on 9/11, taking into account the experiences of that day?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/about/about_oem_headquarters.shtml

Posted by Korha | August 13, 2007 2:03 PM

^^ Also, this information was in the Village Voice article. The site that Guiliani's OEM chief originally recommended back in the mid 90's is very close to the current site that Bloomberg built.

Posted by Korha | August 13, 2007 2:05 PM

Umm, Brooklyn is right over the Brooklyn Bridge from City Hall. You could drive over the bridge and be at Metrotech in just a few minutes. Or you could take a subway from the City Hall station and be at the Metrotech stop in a few minutes as well. There's also a well-known and frequently used pedestrian walkway over the bridge...a longer walk than to the WTC, yes, but not that much longer. Or how about a police boat?

You don't have a clue what it was like around here on 9/11, do you? The answer is that, no, none of those things are possible. You can't drive over the bridge. You can't take the subway. You could probably walk all the way there. Hell, you could walk to Jersey City too, if you didn't mind being out of action for a long time. Maybe a police boat is possible, but I wouldn't count on it - what if the emergency is a hurricane?

Posted by Al | August 13, 2007 2:06 PM

the current site that Bloomberg built

Ah, Bloomberg. Love to see him get there during a hurricane.

Posted by Al | August 13, 2007 2:09 PM

Giuliani is actually the only tested conservative in the 2008 race. He dealt seriously and well with crime, welfare, and budgetary issues that had been toyed with or neglected by Dinkins; when 9/11 hit, people, other than liberal ideologs, knew that he was an effective leader.

The following from Stephen Malanga in City Journal captures his actions:

"Like great wartime leaders, Giuliani displayed unflinching courage on 9/11. A minute after the first plane struck, he rushed downtown, arriving at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit the South Tower, when it became obvious to everyone that New York was under attack. Fearing that more strikes were on the way—and without access to City Hall, the police department, or the city’s command center because of damage from the attacks—Giuliani hurried to reestablish city government, narrowly escaping death himself as the towers came down next to a temporary command post he had set up in lower Manhattan. “There is no playbook for a mayor on how to organize city government when you are standing on a street covered by dust from the city’s worst calamity,” one of his deputy mayors, Anthony Coles, later observed.

"Giuliani understood that he needed not only to keep city government operating but to inspire and console as well. Within a few hours, he had reestablished New York’s government in temporary headquarters, where he led the first post-9/11 meeting with his commissioners and with a host of other New York elected officials on hand to observe, prompting even one of his harshest critics, liberal Manhattan congressman Jerrold Nadler, to marvel at the “efficiency of the meeting.” Within hours, the city launched a massive search and recovery operation. Some half a dozen times that day Giuliani went on TV, reassuring the city and then the nation with his calm, frank demeanor and his plainspoken talk. As the nation struggled to understand what had happened and President Bush made his way back to Washington, Giuliani emerged as the one public official in America who seemed to be in command on 9/11. He became, as Newsweek later called him, 'our Winston Churchill.' "

Posted by Peter Leavitt | August 13, 2007 2:27 PM

Posted by Peter Leavitt | August 13, 2007 2:32 PM

No, Al, from my view of the WTC to the West and the Brooklyn Bridge to the East in my office on Water Street right next to the South Street Seaport, half an island away from my apartment in Midtown, I guess I had no idea what it was like in my city on 9/11. Nope, no freaking idea. None.

Would all of transportation options I outlined be available in each and every disaster situation? Probably not..although I'd likely rule out a walk from City Hall to WTC during a severe hurricane. But on 9/11, they all were. This is the mayor here, not some poor schlub trying to get back to his apartment in Bensonhurst. The police and other city authorities would have found a way to get the mayor to a command center at Metrotech.

And if Rudy was and is the consummate anti-terrorist politician he always tells us he is, shouldn't a possible second terrorist attack on the WTC have been his number 1 priority when thinking about establishing an emergency response center?

I guess the more important question, though, was, "How do I get to the command center in the case of water main break?"

PS - Metrotech is no more than 2.5 miles from City Hall. Giuliani probably could have gotten there walking in less time than it took him to find a replacement command center after the Monument to Rudy facility he had built was made inaccessible as a result of the attacks.

And when you find a 2.5 mile walking route to Jersey City that doesn't involve walking through the Holland or Lincoln tunnels or a stroll over the GW bridge way uptown, please, let me in on that secret.

Posted by OGLiberal | August 13, 2007 3:46 PM

Um, to know who Rudy Giuliani is you MUST read Wayne Barrett. It's like talking about Robert Moses without reading The Power Broker. It's like discussing Citizen Kane without knowing who William Randolph Hearst was.

Wayne Barrett attacks Giuliani NOT because he writes for the lefty Village Voice. Wayne Barrett attacks Giuliani because Wayne Barrett was a long-time Giuliani supporter. Barrett was one of the first people suckered into the heroic myth of Giuliani. Barrett wrote a book about the Koch administration called City for Sale and Rudy was the hero of that book. It's one of the things that launched him as a possible mayoral candidate. Over the years Barrett saw the true Giuliani. Rudy was notorious for taking over other people's cases as a prosecutor. They would put in the work and if it looked like a big showy trial and a win, Rudy would try the case. Many of his cases against white collar crime would be overturned on appeal. The thing that turned Barrett off the most was Giuliani increased racial tension in the city and was willing to exploit racism to win elections. Racially-coded campaigns are not just run in South Carolina, they work especially well in the white ethnic sections of Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island too. The other reason Barrett attacks Giuliani is that everyone who has observed him up close know he is monomanical bully with totalitarian instincts. The Police Chief who instintued the widely hailed Comstat program? Rudy got rid of him and replaced him with a series of yes-men. The Schools Chancellor who wanted to keep political influence out of the schools? Rudy gay-baited him and called him a sissy. Rudy both the man who spoke well on 9/11 and the man who tried to blackmail the city into giving himself 3 more months of power because of 9/11.

When you go the Village Voice site to see this article, use their search engine and look up Wayne Barrett's articles. You'll see his case against Giuliani. It's the story of a man who helped create a monster trying to get the monster back in the cage.

Posted by KevinNYC | August 13, 2007 4:11 PM

Al, you are very, very wrong about where the OEM should be located. It was only Giuliani who declared it needed to be within walking distance of City Hall. (The current site in Brooklyn, still meets this condition.) But also the NYPD has cars, buses, boats and helicopters.

Also tens of thousands of people walked over the East River Bridges on 9/11

Aaron, Funny you should mention Ray Nagin. Lower Manhattan is part of the flood plane. The reason the OEM was 25 stories up in WTC 7 was because of that. If a Hurricane like Katrina directly hit New York, everything below 23rd Street would be under water. This is why the large amounts of diesel fuel had to be stored above ground. This was another design flaw of putting the OEM where Rudy wanted it.

Posted by KevinNYC | August 13, 2007 4:28 PM

ugzwn purif ijgwk xgzd ztbiqrp fzhvaxw wfedzyh

Posted by juorn pzeqdtfh | August 14, 2007 8:17 AM

"ugzwn purif ijgwk xgzd ztbiqrp fzhvaxw wfedzyh"

Best and most coherent statement of the neocon position yet!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 14, 2007 10:48 AM

Look, guys, it's very simple: Judi didn't want to have sex on a desk in Brooklyn. That would be gauche; it's much classier to do it in Manhattan.

Posted by Woody Bombay | August 14, 2007 8:41 PM

The ONLY 2008 Swiss Rolex site that offers. replica rolex NEXT DAY DELIVERY via COD or Credit Card payment! [url=http://replica.makeforum.org]replica rolex[/url].

Posted by replica rolex | January 27, 2008 9:53 AM