Search Archives:

Custom Search
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts

Friday, October 19, 2007

Democrats for Rudy?

I'm going to start this post with an admission; I was wrong about Rudy Giuliani. Back in February of this year, I wrote, "Rudy Giuliani doesn't stand a snowball's chance of getting the GOP nomination."

It's not the first bad call I've made and not the last, I'm sure. I'm learning to stay out of the prediction business. In my defense, my reasoning was sound -- just about everyone on the right thought he was a horrible, horrible candidate at that time. A lot of them still do. But people are getting caught up in early polling and, since Rudy's doing well, are deciding that it's time to be pragmatists. This includes many on the Evangelical right -- who I thought would sink Giuliani's chances for sure. Seriously, anyone making a February prediction that religious conservatives would become pragmatic would've been taking an extremely wild guess. That's not their history.

So, in our moment in time, Giuliani looks like the nominee. The first primary vote hasn't even been cast yet, so things could shake out very differently very easily. But Rudy's out front at the moment.

So let's look at Giuliani.

Rudy has one major problem -- his entire campaign is about 9/11 and his reputation for leadership during that event is BS. Take that away and the Giuliani campaign isn't about anything at all. Photos of "America's Mayor" walking the streets that day weren't taken because Rudy needed to get out and lead the people, he was out on the street because an incredibly boneheaded decision left him with no place else to go. Most people don't know that the World Trade Center was referred to as "Ground Zero" before 9/11, because history showed that the complex was the most likely target of a terrorist attack. Despite this, Giuliani insisted that his "command bunker" be built in 7 World Trade -- because it was convenient for him. Rudy and staff were out on the street, looking for a place to set up an impromptu command center.

Like I say, boneheaded.

Giuliani also knew that the radios that police and firefighters used were useless in the towers. This was a problem that had been identified in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Newsday reported in 2006 that Giuliani had equipped first responders with "incompatible radios from a politically wired vendor." The radios, useless as they were, stayed. A spokesperson for New York's Uniformed Fire Officers' Association says, "He had eight years to solve that problem."

He didn't solve it. It was much more important that his buddy the vendor get the sales.

This isn't the only reason that firefighters aren't Rudy's friends. When recovery efforts were taking too long, Giuliani switched the purpose of the work at ground zero from finding bodies to cleaning up. As a result, many remains would be scooped up, put into dump trucks, and hauled to a landfill. Hardly a dignified burial. Rudy put this as a safety issue, but firefighters -- not without cause -- considered themselves both safety experts and uniquely qualified to deal with the dangers. Giuliani was unmoved. Firefighters were outraged and, in an incident that most people don't seem to remember, pretty much rioted.

The Guardian, November 2001:

Hundreds of firefighters had gathered with their unions at the site where 343 firefighters and 23 police officers died, carrying banners saying: "Mayor Giuliani, let us bring our brothers home."

The firefighters had worked virtually non-stop at the scene since the towers collapsed. But a few days ago, Mr Giuliani said he wanted no more than 24 firefighters and 24 police officers at Ground Zero at any one time. Spotters would be used to look for bodies.

The firefighters said the cutting back would turn Ground Zero into a "full-time construction scoop-and-dump operation". Michael Carter, vice president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, said: "That site, besides containing roughly 250 firefighter bodies, also contains many civilian bodies."


Recovery efforts were still being successful and were far from over -- teams pulled 12 bodies of first responders from the rubble that very week. The group marched to ground zero, where they overturned barricades and clashed with police.

In response, Rudy held a press conference and totally miscast the issue, claiming the firefighters were the ones lying about the facts. "...we would love to recover [the remains], but none of us standing here can possibly justify seeing a human being die in this effort if it isn't handled with great discipline and great responsibility. And that's the spirit with which this is being done," he said.

"And I feel really, really bad that there are certain people who tried to mischaracterize that. And I feel bad about that. But the part that I will not tolerate are people violating the law. Whether you're the mayor, a policeman, a fireman or a regular citizen, you don't get to violate the law. You don't get to punch New York City police officers. For that, you go to jail..."

And firefighters did go to jail. Guardian reported that "senior firemen, including a captain, a retired captain, a fire marshall and a lieutenant" were arrested, along with three union leaders.

There's plenty of other problems with Rudy phony history. His claim that he was responsible for a decrease in crime in NYC is one -- crime went down nationwide as the economy surged. In fact, Giuliani's record here actually sucks compared to other cities. According to Johann Hari, writing in Independent, "San Francisco chose to lavish cash not on chasing petty crime but on programmes to divert juvenile delinquents into job training, drug treatment and counselling. The result? Their crime rate fell by 33 per cent, compared to 26 per cent in NYC during the same period."

Rudy's "tough on crime" stance didn't actually work. In fact, comparatively speaking, it sucked at reducing crime.

All of this would be brought up by any Democratic opponent. Comparing polls at this point between presumptive nominees is pretty much meaningless. A primary campaign and a general election campaign are two different things. The other Republican candidates are treating Giuliani with kid gloves right now, so far honoring Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." A dem opponent won't be so easy on him.

Nor will a possible third party candidate rising in response to Giuliani. As I said earlier, people are treating a Giuliani nomination with pragmatism, including "many on the Evangelical right." The key word here is "many." Not everyone plans to take a Giuliani nomination lying down.

Salon reported yesterday, "Key conservative and religious leaders will continue discussing a mass defection from the Republican Party in a private meeting at a Washington hotel Saturday afternoon, just hours after the pro-choice presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani speaks before thousands of pro-life voters." A third party candidate would sink the GOP's chances in '08.

And GOP insiders are taking the possibility very seriously. Political op Bobby Eberle blogs at GOPUSA.com, "We should be out there working and campaigning hard for the candidate that most reflects our values. These candidates will battle it out in state primaries and caucuses. When the dust settles, one will emerge as the Republican nominee. I will support that nominee. Supporting a third party candidate in 2008 will ensure that Clinton wins. The country can not afford the damage that will be done if the Democrats hold the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives."

Whether or not he's right that Clinton will be the nominee, he's right otherwise. A third party conservative would screw the party.

FOX News:

When a third party Christian Conservative is considered in the race for the White House, the candidate captures one of four Republican votes and a small minority of the overall vote. That significantly decreases support for Republican Rudy Giuliani and increases Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton's lead to double digits, according to a FOX News poll released Wednesday.


Add to this that Republicans are already less than excited about candidates and you can pretty safely predict that a lot of them will stay home on election day, regardless of who the nominee is.

All in all, a Giuliani nomination could be the best thing that's happened for Democrats in a long, long time.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and religious nut might be just what need

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

If You Ever Needed to be Reminded that Iraq has Nothing to do with 9/11...

World Trade Center in flamesSeptember 11, 2001 may have been the most boring work day of my entire life. I had a seriously weird temp job that day, working for the Wisconsin Physicians' Service (WPS). WPS was switching their phone system and they weren't able to put calls on hold, so my job was to take messages. If you called when the phone queue was full, you'd get me, I'd take your name and number, then someone who knew what the hell they were talking about would call you back later. I wasn't really happy with the gig, since no one who called was very happy to talk to me, but there ya go.

It wasn't boring to start with but, as the events of the day unfolded, it got boring fast. No one on September 11, 2001 was super-interested in their health insurance. They had other things to worry about. This left me to stare out the window at what was otherwise a clear, beautiful day and wish I had CNN. I knew something was up, something about terrorists and a plane crash and the World Trade Center, but that was about it. I remember seeing a plane plow into one of the towers on the cafeteria TV and wondering how in the hell they got that footage -- I found out later it was the second plane. I didn't know there were two.

I felt ignorant as hell that day. WPS didn't get enough calls to give me anything to do. I might have answered a call an hour -- I'm guessing less. It gave me a lot of time to think, to worry, to wonder. It sucked on so many levels. When I left that day, I went straight home, watched CNN, and did what I thought every good american should do -- get caught up on what happened, get hammered, and get pissed off at Osama bin Laden. Seriously pissed off. Murderously pissed off. My TV is lucky to have survived.

I don't really mean this to be a trip down my Bad Memory Lane. Everyone has a 9/11 story. Most are less boring than mine. Mine seems especially significant because it seemed so damned long. Nothing happened to me that day -- almost literally. And it didn't take me long to get caught up or get drunk. I woke up the next day with an awful hangover, a second very boring day ahead of me (9/11 was my first day on the job), and a very good understanding of the events that happened the previous day. Watching people dive out of skyscraper windows turned out to be not very hard to understand.

I've spent the last 6 years thinking about that day. Not constantly, but I really do think of it at least once a day -- how uncertain our futures are, how people who've never met us judge us collectively and find us guilty individually, how I could -- at pretty much any moment -- find myself diving out the window of a skyscraper to greet certain death below. I think about the differences in certain death and how one certain death is better and more merciful than another.

So, on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, we were faced with a deep and pressing problem -- did someone hurt Gen. David Freakin' Petraeus's feelings?

RedState.com, Sue MoveOn for Defamation:

Based on some preliminary research into the legal requirements for a defamation suit, there seems to be a reasonable basis for a suit. If I am right, a lawsuit should be filed as soon as possible - and surely there would be law firms willing to take the case pro bono.

I am opposed unnecessary and self-serving lawsuits, but this is neither. Launching a lawsuit would bring truly just punishment upon MoveOn.org, and serve the interests of the entire country by discrediting a radical and unpatriotic group. At the end of the year, MoveOn.org should receive the same esteem as PETA.

MoveOn.org's punishment will come mainly from the general populace, who will see MoveOn.org as extremists who will attempt to sully the reputation of one of our finest military men in order to bring about an American defeat in Iraq.


See, MoveOn.org bought an ad in the New York Times that suggested that Gen. Petraeus would "betray us." This is unforgivable and this is the big story. In the shadow of 9/11, with 3,000 people dead, the big story is that a bunch of lefties were mean to a general and may have hurt his feelings.

The big story is not that, six years after his crime, Osama bin Laden is still at large. The big story is not that Bush has used bin Laden as his own personal Goldstein for six freakin' years and done absolutely jack shit to bring him to justice. The big story is not that the war in Iraq has done more to increase terrorism than decrease it.

No, the big freakin' crime today is that someone was mean to Petraeus. In fact, now that Gen. Petraeus is finally putting out his big report that's so damned important that no one can even talk about Iraq without hearing from him, the big news isn't what Petraeus said -- it's what was said about Petraeus.

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-FL:

General Petraeus has decades of honorable service and his dedication to this nation is unparalleled. The general, alongside our troops, is literally laying his life on the line for our country and to try to slander his reputation for political gain is shameful, disappointing, and marks a new low in this debate.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT:

General Petraeus has served his country honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He has risked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. For this, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of every American -- not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org,

Mitt Romney:

Democrats must make a choice. Will they embrace these deplorable tactics or give General Petraeus a fair hearing? It should be the hope of all Americans that we give him a fair hearing. Certainly, he and our men and women in Iraq deserve it. In the coming days and weeks, there will be much debate about the future course in Iraq, but this debate should be free of the kind of shameful tactics MoveOn.org has shown today. It's time we heard from the generals, not Washington politicians and not ultra-liberal advocacy groups. All Americans should keep an open mind.


Six years after 9/11, the question isn't what the hell we're doing screwing around in Iraq -- a country that has jack to do with 9/11. No, the question is why people are mean to a General in a war that has jack to do with 9/11. This big report we were all supposed be waiting for isn't the big news -- no, the big news is that someone insulted some goddammed general in some goddammed war that some goddammed president got us goddammed stuck in.

We were waiting for this report, as the president urged us to, and suddenly it's not all that important. What's important is one damned man and one damned distraction. Petraeus's and Crocker's report was all-important two days ago. One day ago, it became totally unimportant. In just one more "look over there!", we're all supposed to be totally freaked out over criticism of Petraeus. Suddenly, it's not about the war at all.

I look out my window and this 9/11 looks exactly like the original to me. It's a beautiful early autumn day. It's cool and I'm so used to running fans that it seems a little silent. The same clear blue sky stretched over both days.

But that day, in 2001, was about what hate could do. It was a wake up call to tell us we live in a larger world.

Today, it's about what a nice guy Gen. David Petraeus is.

Frankly, I don't give a shit.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: ; ; ; ; ; , -- the issue is . 9/11, 2007 -- the issue is what a nice man is