With wavering support, it looks as if the Giuliani camp is returning to the old Rudy as 911 hero script. Rudy critics would say that Giuliani's role is an overstated one. He cut back the number of rescuers and responder equipment that complicated the relief effort according to union firefighters and other first responders. Giuliani's accounts of firefighter bravery conflict with documented accounts that clearly show that communication problems were evident. Rudy's efforts have come into question as it was shown that Giuliani spent 7% of the time he said he did, at ground zero. To his credit, Giuliani has stated that he misspoke about the time he spent at ground zero. Others have accused Rudy of being a one issue, 911-only campaigner.

Questions for debate:

1.)If you had a relative who died on that day, would you appreciate a politician campaigning off of it?

2.)Is Giuliani the hero he says he is, who provided great leadership during a time of crisis? What reasons lead you to believe as you do?

3.)Is Giuliani primarily a one issue campaigner? Why or why not?

I don't think Guiliani is the best candidate for President... I like the guy. I appreciate what he did for NYC BEFORE 9/11 and appreciate his efforts during 9/11... especially returning the check... I am not 100% sure he's the right guy for this country for the next 4-8 years.

Having said that... You live in Nebraska and you're going to question what his leadership meant to and for New York. In plain, simple English - You don't have a Goddamned clue what you're talking about. 9/11 was a TV show for you. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. None. I don't care what you heard, what you blogged, who you know, who you knew. You know two things Jack and ____ and Jack left town.

1) If Guiliani wants to stand around all day and say "I was a great leader during 9/11 in NYC." There's not much to argue with.
2) I was there, as it happened, as they fell, I was there the next day, I was in the pit in the following weeks stringing CAT5 so everyone else down there could communicate, I was on Chelsea Piers later doing the same - Trust me Guiliani's presence was immeasurable. He was absolutely, unequivocally a great leader at that time.
3) Maybe 2 or 3. The real thrust of his campaign has been, "I cleaned up NYC. I brought down crime. I wasn't Dinkins." He's right on all counts. And again as someone who was in NYC before he got here and after I can assure NYC is better place for having him.

Get a grip there Dorothy. Your hysterics are pathetic. Doesn't take much to actually have felt the same horror at what happened regardless of where you were at the time. NYC was my backyard growing up and even out here in AZ I felt sick like everyone else. Jules wasn't exactly the most popular person in the Apple regardless of how he cleaned it up. I personally would love to see him as nominee just to enjoy watching all his dirty laundry being held in reserve to come flying out.

Backyard, schmack yard. Spend two weeks smelling NYC after 9/11. Just smelling it and tell me how horrified you were.

1.)If you had a relative who died on that day, would you appreciate a politician campaigning off of it?

Probably not. As has been pointed out, most of us don't know jack about how NYC smells or running Cat 5 in the rubble. So I don't care. Seems to me that Katrina was a much worse disaster, but many of those NYC types are so full of themselves. I get that impression about Rudy.

BTW, 9/11 illustrated why disaster recovery is so important in today's computing environments. Nobody would have been running cable had the outfits had remote, redundant datacenters. I'd never brag about not being prepared for disaster.

2.)Is Giuliani the hero he says he is, who provided great leadership during a time of crisis? What reasons lead you to believe as you do?

Maybe he did and he used up all his leadership ability right there. I suspect this will be his one big lifetime thing, a story for the grandkids. Nevertheless, questions go begging, such as how come security was so lax that this could have happened? The best leadership avoids disasters. The worst simply reacts to emergencies. In computing business terms, its being proactive rather than reactive. The disaster of 9/11 could have been avoided with better security. The massive computer outages illustrated just shameful lack of preparation. I'm sorry about all the deaths, but what do I know about it? After all it's not like I was there taking pictures or anything.

3.)Is Giuliani primarily a one issue campaigner? Why or why not?

Seems that way, but he is getting traction with it, as opposed to Tancredo and his silly immigrant thing. This isn't surprising since 9/11 provided loads of political traction to those in power at the time. I don't think it'll fly in a general election due to nobody knowing jack and basically not caring what NYC smells like. The voters in Iowa probably don't care. What does NYC have to do with the price of corn? Chicago is much more important. I do know what that place smells like, but I've never strung Cat 5 there. I have been there for conferences and training. I know what the trading floor looks like. Pretty good food too.

You'd think that a leader from NYC would be concerned about the ice caps melting. NYC would be in deep trouble if the pumps were to stop working today. For us it'd just mean seaside property. Might want to get a boat. We also don't care for salsa made in NYC.

It's true that NYC is just a TV program to most of the nation. Now that the writers are on strike, it's hardly that either.

we did run CAT5 for businesses we ran it for emergency services & the red cross - of course if you had any idea what was happening then beyond TV & Loose Change you'd know that.

...
On topic

After 9/11 what did Guiliani do that made him an ineffective leader that should disqualify him from (needlessly, endlessly) reminding everyone of his leadership skills?

1.)If you had a relative who died on that day, would you appreciate a politician campaigning off of it?

Well I wouldn't draw too many conclusions based on what an obviously slanted New York Times "report" says he's doing.

2.)Is Giuliani the hero he says he is, who provided great leadership during a time of crisis? What reasons lead you to believe as you do?

I looked over the article, and I don't see anywhere him claiming to be a hero, or anything at all to that effect.

As for the quality of leadership he did provide, I think the people of New York, and particularly those involved in emergency services, would best be able to answer that question.

3.)Is Giuliani primarily a one issue campaigner? Why or why not?

Is that a serious question? Anyone even remotely familiar with the Republican race can see that he's been focusing on all kinds of issues. Remember those highly publicized spats between him and Mitt Romney over who has the better conservative credentials? They hit on immigration, fiscal policy, and crime, among other things, and I don't think the immediate postcrisis response to 9/11 even came up.

Anyone claiming that Giuliani is a one issue candidate is either very ignorant of his record or very vested in seeing him lose because they are scared of him as an opponent. Its just that simple.

I think BA hit the nail on the head. I'm personally still deciding whether hes the MOST qualified candidate to be president. I haven't made up my mind about that. My decision about that will come as I hear more about his policies and plan's to bring the country together.

On the other hand, I do remember watching the man walking through lower manhattan on that awful day covered in soot giving commands and seeing for himself first hand what was needed. He was a steady and strong presence in the midst of an unmitigated disaster and he showed alot of backbone just by being there when nobody was completely sure whether there were more attacks still to come.

If that doesn't show leadership, then nothing does.



Excuse me, but are you actually saying that Giuliani was responsible for 9/11? Because if so, I'd like to hear how you think Giuliani as Mayor of NYC was supposed to have personally been responsible for stopping 2 airliners from crashing into the World Trade Center?



I also lived in the area when Dinkins was Mayor. What a disaster he was. Giuliani did a tremendous job of cleaning up the city but stepped on some toes doing so. Thus his reputation.

Personally, I say air the dirty laundry and let the chips fall where they may. My feeling is this sort of attack against him would most likely backfire. People are pretty forgiving of someone's personal faults for the most part as we all have our own skeletons. I won't judge him for that. He's not running to be my pastor.

Blackstone:


Ringwraith:


Looking aside vague references to critics and "slanted" news stories, what aspect from the New York Times article do you dispute? Is it the new ad which features 911 prominently? Is it the increased references of 911 in his speeches now? For the story not to be correct, it would have to be shown that he isn't using pandering to sentiment about 911. For that to happen, he would have to not feature it in ads or speeches.

Ringwraith-You also side stepped the questions, in particular, the first one. It's one thing thing to lead through a crisis and to identify with it, it's quite another to try it on like a campaign dress in order to get yourself elected. I don't know, I just think it cheapens it and is downright crass, if not making a mockery out of what it is that we are all about, since we are all Americans, New Yorkers or not.

Ringwraith:


Thank you for providing a specific answer to my second question that was posed.

Did I affirmatively declare that the story was incorrect? I believe I said it's not a reliable indicator of what he's doing. You asked if we'd be offended by his campaigning, and my answer is that I'd have to see his ads and speeches for myself in order to know whether or not they'd be offensive to me. I'm certainly not going to decide that based on what's written about him in some left-wing rag.

Now that I typed that response, I decided to look over the mentioned ad on his campaign website. The ad is extremely tasteful (if not particularly informative as to his own qualifications). I don't see how it exploits anything at all.

I suppose it would be one thing if it showed planes smashing into buildings or billowing clouds of dust and smoke around the city, but it doesn't do any of that.

To some degree, I have to agree with you, as far as the rest of the nation is concerned and Guilliani and NYC. I don't know, how can I know? I was in NYC in 2003 last time, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn (really, no foolin' ) and that was about it.

But the real question is- does leadership regarding 9/11 translate into national leadership, for all Americans? In his clean up of NYC, it is pretty widely held he pretty much had to wipe his butt with the constitution, due process, eminent domain and all that- tough prosecutor hollywood style- but is that even the truth here?

I empathize here, because I feel the same way when anyone from the "lower 48" opens thier cake hole about Alaska, or freedom fighters in Central America etc- I was there, I experianced it, I know the reality, I was an integral part of that reality, and really, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

BUT- when discussing Rudy and 9/11- was it good leadership? What empirical help did provide that helped in that tragedy? Was it simply being a figurehead, and walking around, appearing to give orders, breaking up a resource logjam or two? HOW did he help, and how does that translate for a national leadership role?

On a side note BA- this may be good for some sort of other thread- debating something you have personal experiance with, against a person that only knows what they have information they have gathered, second had at best.

You're excused.

One point here is that Rudy can't take any credit regarding 9/11 other than his reactive leadership after the disaster. He's in the same boat as the airlines that lobbied against tighter security measures after other terrorist attacks involving jetliners, those being in-flight bombings.

The other point is that those involved in critical computing systems know that proactive leadership beats reactive leadership. When it comes to who's going to lead the free world next, I'm putting the proactive above the reactive, and so the desire is to hear how another 9/11 or Katrina is to be avoided.

I put more of the blame on the airlines' lack of security for enabling 9/11 than the mayor of NYC not recognizing the danger ahead of time. I extend the blame to any congress critters who responded to the airlines' lobbying against tighter security.

Let me put it into a computer parallel: Sys Admin A comes in and says, "Hey, the critical servers were down but I got them back up in only a few hours!" Sys Admin B asks, "So why'd they go down in the first place?" SA A: "Oh, some guys from Saudi broke in and munged them up." Manager of SA A says, "So why'd you let that happen? It's your job to protect the systems." SA A comes to the realization that the manager is very disappointed. SA B sees an opportunity to excel by tightening system security. "Hey boss," SA B says, "How's about reviewing security, putting in more firewalls, locking this place down tighter than Fort Knox?" The manager smiles.

This follows quite closely to what happened after 9/11. Security gets clamped down so tightly that nobody can do their jobs any longer, and then steps are taken to rectify the problem of too much security. Happens often in computing environments. The better path, and the one less taken, is to do proper security from the beginning.

Proactive leadership beats reactive leadership in computing and politics. Rudy's claim to 9/11 fame is an example of reactive leadership. It might fly had his job not involved protecting NYC, but it did. Like Sys Admin A, he has nothing to brag about.

I am not sure Rudy is claiming anything other than reactive leadership. I am not certain (unwatched TV show/Tom Clancy plot aside) one can be proactive about planes flying into buildings.

If it were another truck bomb in the basement your assertions would be better founded.

Seriously AM?

Your comparison of being the Mayor of New York and a Sys Admin fails. Retry?

I may not like Giuliani for president but I still think he did a great job in New York(as much as somebody can appreciate who didn't live in New York at the time)



Oh and the quip about ice caps melting AM... Ell Oh Ell... Let me know when it happens....

In crises it's reassuring to have someone who is in charge who at the very least appears to know what they Hell they're doing. In the case of RG he was strong (sounding), he was everywhere (there were cameras or microphones), and he was quite good at making New Yorkers feel like there was a way out of all this and that it was going to be OK.

Those are all intangibles - but really what is a President but a loose collection of hopes and dreams of the electorate? What _was_ Bill Clinton? What was RR? What _was_ JFK? For that matter what _is_ Ron Paul? What do we really know about any of them? What were/are their leadership qualities? What pre-qualified any of them, or any President, for the job? Bill Clinton ran a cruddy little state, Ronald was an actor with a chimpanzee, JFK wrote a book - is that the mark of a President? President Stephen King!

The mayor of New York City doesn't have a lot of sway in regards to airline security, that's more of a congressional matter. I do find it interesting that a lot of firefighters have deserted Giuliani over his drastic cutting back of rescue efforts after the attacks.(from 300 to 25 to be more specific)

To a lesser extent, he could be blamed for exaggerating his interest and role in targeting terrorism before 911. Sources like the Village Voice have noted that his specialty was chasing the mob, street crime, and gangs, as opposed to international terrorists. He also has stated that the FBI wasn't very forthcoming with him regarding intelligence and help before 911, though Kerik says the problem with the intelligence department at the NYPD was that it's focus was on organized crime, not terrorism.Source. If that is the case, then it appears that his claims to have been a deep study of terrorism has been inflated. The whole "I was there, sweating it out with the average people" bit also is something that I find to be opportunistic and shameless.

LOL... BA I have to say your initial reaction was fantastic, it reminds me of how my son looks up to me... Man, all you need is some warm milk, cookies, and a bedtime story. O.K. I get it, many conservatives of today are looking for a father figure, a leader, someone to tell them... "it'll be alright, we'll get whoever did this to us".

Whatever floats your boat. The problem is that in the original post, Nebraska linked articles that showed, actual rescuers calling out RG for fraudulent statements. But you went after Nebraska, rather than the material he provided. Tell us, didn't the people actually pulling people out the rubble have a (how did you put it) a "goddamn clue"??

We're you at ground zero pulling out bodies, did you see RG walking around everyday?? Every other day?? Exactly how many hours a day was RG down at Ground zero? Since all of us non-New Yorkers only know "Jack and _____" Tell us how it really went down at Ground Zero?? How often did you see RG at ground zero while you were there pulling out the bodies?



Well prior to 9/11 you would have been in the minority of people who "liked" RG seeing his approval was




The polls show us prior to 9/11 Rudy was quite unpopular and had dismal approval opinion about him. And after 9/11, well what can we say, even George Bush seemed somewhat appealing.

Guiliani, like GW owe their popularity to the actions of terrorists, not their own abilities as leaders. He was the mayor and he spoke to people that needed spoken too. I think some one else asked, but what did Rudy Guiliani do that you think, say you or me wouldn't do, if we were the mayor of the city??

Best practices, that's what it is. Anyone who understands this sees right through Rudy's brag. And BTW, the ice caps are melting, so the time is now.

Regarding Nebraska29's observation that avoiding international terrorism attacks is the business of Congress, I agree. Now who was in control of Congress before 9/11? Rudy wants to be the next leader of the free world as a Republican.

There's a parallel here. I think the idea he's trying to get across is the one that worked in 2004 to keep GWB in power -- if you want to be safe from terrorists, vote Republican. I'm just saying why would you want to do that? They dropped the ball before. And I'm seeing someone bragging about being a reactive leader. Can't help it. It's a best practice in business to be proactive.

I'm simply extending that idea to government. If they can't even perform as well as a systems administrator, they shouldn't be POTUS. Now Rudy might be able to pull it off if he were to push all the proactive things he did as mayor over his great job as a janitor. It was a mess. He cleaned it up. Great, here's your bucket and mop for the next time.

1. Politicians exploiting tragedy for personal gain is not unique to Rudy Giuliani. He's just raised it to an art form. My next door neighbor worked for Cantor Fitzgerald and often traveled to NYC for business. Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 employees that day (two-thirds of their workforce) and she knew many of the dead. She resents Giuliani's constant evoking/exploitation of 9/11.

2. With President Bush incommunicado most of the day, America was looking for someone to step up and provide some semblance of leadership on September 11. Nature does abhor a vacuum and Giuliani stepped in to fill it. He was the voice of authority reassuring a panicked citizenry that there was indeed a firm hand on the tiller of government. Giuliani throughly embarrassed Bush and upon his performance in the aftermath of 9/11, the genesis for his presidential bid was given life.

That's the P.R. version of events.

On the less-than-noble side, Giuliani has exploited the tragedy for his own personal enrichment. He claims to have spent as much time at the site of the attacks as many of the rescue and recovery workers. From his Wikipedia entry:

While his appointment logs were unavailable for the six days immediately following the attacks, after that Giuliani spent a total of 29 hours over three months at the site. This contrasted with recovery workers at the site who spent this much time at the site in two to three days.

Giuliani pocketed over $11.4 million dollars in speaking fees in a single year following September 11. His personal worth prior to leaving office was estimated at about $2 million, but could be as much as 30 times that amount now (Giuliani has hot disclosed all of his financial records).

And if we were to go into how Giuliani fell short in the preparations before 9/11, that could be a separate thread itself. Suffice it to say, while he has personally enriched himself in the aftermath, Giuliani has made some extremely dubious calls in his entire handling of the city's preparation for and response to the terrorist attack.

Giuliani was firm and decisive in a moment of crisis, but to call him a "hero" devalues the term. Particularly so when one observes how he has turned the tragedy into a cash cow.

3. Giuliani is running as an alarmist and fear-mongerer. He is the strong, take-no-crap mayor and Mafia smashing prosecutor now vying for the gig of the nation's top law enforcement official. He'd probably make a better head of the FBI, than President of the United States. But it suits Rudy to play up the threat of Al Qaeda and terrorism to scare voters into choosing him over Hillary Clinton and other "cut-and-run" Democrats.

Will being a single-issue candidate be enough to take Rudy all the way? Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan doubts it.

...Rudy Giuliani banked everything on his response to 9/11. Fear of Al-Qaeda resonated through every speech. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto might be seen as a boon to his campaign. But in the end, Giuliani’s utterly unnuanced commitment to fighting back any time, anywhere, did not reassure. It alarmed. His mercurial temperament, fiery egotism and willingness to make enemies of everyone have become liabilities. He has fallen consistently in the polls for the entire year. link

If there's any candidate in the presidential race that would benefit from another terrorist attack on America in the next year, it's Giuliani. Catering to fear and paranoia is all he's got going for him and turning a profit from it is something he's demonstrated considerable talent.

1) If you had a relative who died on that day, would you appreciate a politician campaigning off of it?

Not unless I held Giuliani in high regard prior to 9/11. While it is true that he was there walking the streets with officials and acting every bit the level-headed leader after the attacks, he also neglected to provide the communication system that the FDNY wanted after the first attack on the WTC years ago--a communication system that would have helped the firefighters in no small way on 9/11/2001. It is also true that Giuliani's popularity was low just prior to 9/11. Perhaps a New Yorker on this debate site could enumerate the reasons why.

I respected Giuliani for the way he cleaned up Times Square, but I don't want him as the President. And I'll tell you, I really questioned his judgment when he kept saying on 9/11 "Thank God George Bush is President." As if he had a clue how a President Gore would have reacted to the attacks, assuming of course that he too would have ignored the PDB about bin Laden the previous August and then would have been caught dumbfounded that morning reading "The Pet Goat" for several minutes instead of excusing himself and getting to work.

2) Is Giuliani the hero he says he is, who provided great leadership during a time of crisis? What reasons lead you to believe as you do?

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was a pretty mediocre animal who was never called off the bench for Santa's sleigh team until his, uh, "talent" of lighting up his nose was needed on "one foggy Christmas Eve." But in no way does it mean that he was a consistently valuable member of that elite group. The same seems to hold true for this Rudolph. (Someone who is good in a pinch isn't necessarily good all of the time.)

In addition, Rudy has made an enormous fortune for himself through speaking engagements since his "heroism." Why would he not assume that this tragedy would continue to pay off for him in GOP primaries and caucuses?

3) Is Giuliani primarily a one issue campaigner? Why or why not?

I think Senator Joe Biden said it best when he characterized Giuliani's sentences as "subject, verb and '9/11'."

But there are reasons for that. It is the one thing that all Republicans seem to feel passionate about. Giuliani can't claim that he has been faithful to one wife, he is pro-choice, and he is (last time I heard) pro-gay rights. These are not bad things if you call yourself a Democrat (although I would have liked to see less hanky panky among our historic candidates). So Rudy is playing to his strong suit. And it has worked to an extent--getting the Reverend Pat Robertson's endorsement is a mixed bag, but evidently Giuliani's strategy is experiencing some success among the loudly religious.

1.)If you had a relative who died on that day, would you appreciate a politician campaigning off of it?

Depends on how they went about it.

2.)Is Giuliani the hero he says he is, who provided great leadership during a time of crisis? What reasons lead you to believe as you do?

As I understand it, he provided leadership. Whether it was great leadership or not has come into question. But post-crisis leadership doesn't necessarily translate to every day, leading a nation, type of leadership.

3.)Is Giuliani primarily a one issue campaigner? Why or why not?

He focuses quite a bit on 9/11 and his "living through it". I know that he has put forth policies on other subjects, but terrorism seems to be his primary focus.