Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 11, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE BUNKER....When Rudy Giuliani finally agreed to build an emergency-command center in New York City back in 1996, the city's emergency management director recommended a site in Brooklyn: it was a safe location, had a low profile, and could be built quickly. Giuliani refused. He wanted a location he could walk to, so the command bunker ended up in the World Trade Center instead, where it was destroyed on 9/11.

But there's more. Mark Kleiman points out this paragraph from Wayne Barrett's takedown of Giuliani in the Village Voice:

Giuliani's office [in the bunker] had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.

So far the Christian right has at least semi-forgiven Giuliani for his stands on abortion and gay rights. And the philandering and the messy divorce don't seem to have hurt him all that much either. But I wonder what they'll think of this? And I wonder which mud-slinging Republican opponent will finally get desperate enough to craft a Willie Horton style attack ad darkly allowing the obvious innuendo here to flit across conservative television screens?

Kevin Drum 12:13 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Self-proclaimed terrorist fighter Rudy Giuliani is telling tall tales again. Just days after the Village Voice thoroughly refuted Giuliani's claims about his supposedly central role prosecuting the 1985 murder case of Leon Klinghoffer by PLO terrorists aboard the cruise ship Achille Lauro, the GOP presidential front-runner is at it again. In Ohio on Thursday, the former New York mayor favorably compared himself to World Trade Center rescue workers on and after 9/11.

For more on Giuliani's out-of-control narcissism, see:
"Giuliani Telling Tales on Terrorism Record."

Posted by: Raging on August 11, 2007 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

My guess: they won't care. After all, from a Republican point of view, the most important thing would be that he'd be close by for press conferences & photo ops, so he could show leadership (exhibiting some trait is always more important than actually possessing it, in GOP-land) promptly. And Rudy's a very busy and important man who deserves all the conveniences that save him time, and the accoutrements that show others how important he is (or was).

Posted by: latts on August 11, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

After 9/11, didn't Bernard Kerik have a city-owned apartment downtown, which he used for assignations?

There's something about terrorism that gets those guys all riled up.

Posted by: Hal on August 11, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

The Christian right is quite good at denying any reality that conflicts with their beliefs. Somehow they'll rationalize away Giuliani's pimptastic past.

Posted by: Otto on August 11, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

What's a 'fire horn'?

"It is generally agreed that casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of Stock Exchanges." — John Maynard Keynes

Posted by: MsNThrope on August 11, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, it's old and boring and constitutes dog bites man news, but it bears repeating nevertheless (in the forlorn hope that some pushback may finally sink in with the MSM). Just what kind of explosion would occur in the MSM if there was even a whiff of evidence (let alone the solid evidence as to Giuliani) that a Democratic candidate had bult a cosy getaway at public expense and used it for weekend tete-a-tetes with his mistress? And I won't even try to imagine the reaction if it was a Clinton--we'd all have to duck and cover from the MSM mushroom cloud.

Posted by: Marlowe on August 11, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

The degree to which the Christian right tolerates Giuliani's social positions & sordid personal life depends on

a) his electability in the general election, and

b) whether or not they think they can get him to do what they want him to do.

It's not about principles. It's about power. Their power.

Posted by: junebug on August 11, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

The obvious connection here is Rudy is a James Bond-style villain. And frankly that's so bad ass, that I'm sure Rudy will always have supporters. Listen, New Yorkers loved to hate Rudy. They were upset by the race issues and the police issues -- but ask a cab driver what he thought of Rudy in 1996 -- they loved him. He was cleaning up the city and generally acting like King. And frankly, people seemed to like that. It was only the whiny Columbia professors and the NYU downtown crowd that was worried about liberty -- and thus effete concerns of the Ivory tower. Those out in Queens, Long Island or outer Brooklyn kept voting the guy back in and it was because he didn't act like a push over. And more than anything the Bush/Cheney years should remind you that American's like cowboys.

Posted by: DC1974 on August 11, 2007 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

A fire horn is what one uses when dancing to that old Chubby Checker hit, "Tryst and shout".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on August 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

A fire horn is what one uses when dancing to that old Chubby Checker hit, "Tryst and shout".
Posted by: thethirdPaul

>groan

How do I love thee? Let me count the puns...

"A gold miner is a liar standing beside a hole in the ground."
— Mark Twain

Posted by: MsNThrope on August 11, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, to be used properly, steam was required for fire horns. Now, Rudy is well known for his temper, so, he either supplied pentup steam or much of his inherent hot air to activate the horn.

So as, perhaps, to convey the thought to a guest that fire was a'buildin in the hole.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on August 11, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt that many of the Christian right are aware of Guiliani's amazing decision to locate his emergency command center in the World Trade Center, against the advice of professionals.

This tells so much about the man. You ask yourself, "is he really that foolish?".

Don't know, do you? The secret shack-up pad is a viable explanation as well.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on August 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

"I wonder what they'll think of this?"
--Kevin

Are you really this naive? The conservative wingnuts don't "think" in the classic model of - thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis. It's all about belief.

So, they "believe" Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster, despite the fact she was 3,000 miles away at the time he was found dead. They "believe" global warming doesn't exist and it is just part of a natural warming and cooling cycle, like tides or something, despite every respectable scientist who thinks to the contrary. And they will "believe" that Rudolf Giuliani is a moral man and "tough on terror", despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on August 11, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

How can offices located above ground be called a bunker?

Posted by: Disputo on August 11, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

"believe" global warming doesn't exist and it is just part of a natural warming and cooling cycle,

Actually, that represents progress. Back in the 80s the GW denialists refused to accept that there was any warming trend at all.

Posted by: Disputo on August 11, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

I read the village voice article and it is pretty clear that the Mayor was deeply involved in the "bunker" because he was really looking for a place to "let his hair down" with his girlfriend. What is going to impress a young woman more than a suite of rooms with monographed towels in the World Trade Center. How could a balding dirty old man like Rudy expect to get laid if he had to take his flame to some actual out of the way underground "bunker" in some truly secure location that didn't have the cache of the WTC?

What amazes me is the SOB toots his own horn and Republicans swoon. The guy must be very flexible otherwise he would break his arm patting himself on the back.

That "break his arm patting himself on the back" was the favorite saying of my father when describing a guy like Rudy who bragged about his accomplishments. For my dad, who the Navy called a hero for his multiple performances in combat during WWII, real men didn't brag like that. They let their actions speak for themselves. He was the most Republican man I ever met. Rudy probably has my dad rolling in his grave.

Posted by: corpus juris on August 11, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

The guy must be very flexible otherwise he would break his arm patting himself on the back.

...or breaking his neck kissing his own ass.

Posted by: Disputo on August 11, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Things like this CAN matter. One should not confuse the willful blindness party members have for flaws in their nominee/president with the way they treat primary candidates. Primary candidates can be made or broken by the most trivial moments - whether it's Howard Dean's scream, or Reagan's tantrum over paying for a microphone, etc.

The question isn't whether this is possibly a deal killer for Giuliani - far more trivial things could be! The real question is whether or not the media picks it up at a crucial time in the primary election cycle. Given that the MSM has been asleep at the wheel for the better part of a decade when it comes to Republican malfeasance, the odds aren't good it will become a national story.

This story could be used against him in a general election, probably with good effect. But the odds don't augur well that a Democratic candidate would use it - Obama is too much of Dudey Dooright boyscout, Clinton obviously can't touch issues of infidelity, and Gore (the Democrats last chance for salvation) didn't go negative in 2000, so who knows there either.

Romney seems shameless and plastic enough to say or do anything, so long as it doesn't compromise his Guy Smiley image. But I betcha Fred Thompson, if he ever raises enough money to get on stage, will run one of the most aggressive, dirty, and negative campaigns in memory (even by Karl Rove standards).

Posted by: Augustus on August 11, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, and is it any wonder that among RePugs 'None of the Above' is currently the leading contender?

Posted by: MsNThrope on August 11, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

The base won't care because, after all, he's a Republican. And, as we all know, you can rape, lie, steal, cheat, whore your daughters around South America, murder, torture, and discriminate, all as long as you're a Republican. That's all they care about -- the (R) behind the name.

Posted by: dejah thoris on August 11, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see: Fox won't cover it and neither will Limbaugh nor Dobson nor any of the other usual suspects. So tell me: how is the Republican base going to hear about it?

Posted by: PaulB on August 11, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

And if a rival mentions this in a debate or in an attack ad, Rudy's got that covered, as well: it's 9/11 all the way, baby.

Posted by: PaulB on August 11, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

"So tell me: how is the Republican base going to hear about it?"

I suspect Romney will let them know. Maybe he can take out an ad in the Wall Street Journal.

Posted by: Cal Gal on August 11, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

I'd point out that the Brooklyn location would have been above hurricane flood zone, and therefore would have, indeed, been an underground bunker. Not romantic.

Posted by: Brian C.B. on August 11, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Oh la la...

Can't say I was ever lucky enough to fuck in my own private elevator.

Rudy is a bull!

Posted by: cutebrowntits on August 11, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm. Cigars and mistresses.
Where have I heard that before?
But remember...IOKIYAR!

Posted by: OxyCon on August 11, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy gets undue credit and unbelievable mileage politically out of 9/11. Part of it is just the subjective/emotional level of judging candidates -- Rudy pulls off the image of terror fighter and it allows him to exagerrate his effective leadership on and after 9/11.

The story is a long one with much substantive criticism. The point Kevin emphasizes about the selection of an emgergency command center within walking distance of City Hall actuall sounds like a pretty logical criteria -- it is good for the mayor to be able to walk to the command center in an emergency. The personal stuff about his use of the command center seems like the most unimportant part of the story, although Kevin's point has some validity is anticipating it could be used politically.

Posted by: brian on August 11, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ha! Kevin dares to challenge Rudy on 911?

Rudy owns 911. No one felt more pain on 911 than Rudy. He lost his frickin' subterranean love den.

Posted by: Rudy's lieutenant on August 11, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

And I wonder which mud-slinging Republican opponent will finally get desperate enough to craft a Willie Horton style attack ad darkly allowing the obvious innuendo here to flit across conservative television screens?

This is the point that really interests me. I'm surprised that Brownback or Huckabee or one of the second-tier true conservatives haven't tried to vault themselves up a notch by taking Giuliani on head to head.

Posted by: NBarnes on August 11, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

"But I wonder what they'll think of this?"

They'll shrug it off as well, of course, Kevin. They very badly want a winner, and Giuliani is the only one they have running with a good chance of winning the general election. And they'll also do so largely because the MSM will shrug it off as well, given the latter's obsessive (and reliable) need to embrace a center-Right political candidate in order to mesh with their particular idea of what the political center in this country is right now, and thus to maximize their newspaper's or network's popularity among potential consumers.

The really interesting question is whether we'll nominate a Democrat with enough brains and nerve to utilize Giuliani's personal scandals and dishonesties against him effectively, given the fact that that candidate will have to do so against the wishes of the MSM and its Talking Heads.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on August 11, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

James Bond-style villain?

I'll let someone else make the appropriate sarcastic (hairless, full-of-himself, secret bunker, friggin'-sharks-with-laser-beams) reference.

Posted by: ThresherK on August 11, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, where's Al?

Posted by: Riesz Fischer on August 11, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Believe it or not, I think the Republicans are so on-message, so committed to the plutoc-theocracy, that they won't be so really hard on him. They don't want Democrats to win, to the point the Republican candidates will even sacrifice themselves (to some extent.) Even if I exaggerate, they have more of that character than Dems do. Imagine how hard now, for Hillary to pick Obama as veep (but how cool if she did: black man and white woman, forget who's "on top" heh, the rednecks would never live it down...)

Posted by: Neil B. on August 11, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

The Conservative Deflator: You realize her critics must mean, she ordered Vince to be knocked off. I mean, stuff about her being miles away just makes you look naive.

Posted by: Neil B. on August 11, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

This story is great, everything you want to see in true investigative journalism. Unfortunately, the story won't amount to a piles of lentils if nobody carries it other than The Village Voice.

It won't matter, for the same reason that the story about George W. Bush going AWOL for 16 months during the Vietnam War didn't matter during the 2000 presidential campaign, because only the Boston Globe carried the story back then. Everyone else was obsessed with the "Al Gore's Handlers Make Him Wear Earthtones" and "Al Gore the Serial Exaggerator Claims He Invented the Internet" memes.

More recently, everyone's currently falling all over themselves in covering the burgeoning corruption scandal involving Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and his son Ben. But they were nowhere to be found over three years ago, when the Los Angeles Times ran not one story -- not two stories -- but an in-depth and well documented three-day series of exposes on the self-serving machinations of the Far North's senior senator, who was using his position as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee to benefit his entire family, and not just Ben.

So if we want this story to matter, we as media consumers need to demand that the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., cover it.

Further, we must demand that they start by publicly verifying the facts underlying Wayne Barrett's important expose, and not just by re-printing verbatim those inevitable boiler-plate press statements from the Giuliani campaign and the RNC that deny the allegations and blame the Democrats for sleazy campaigning.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 11, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

"And I wonder which mud-slinging Republican opponent will finally get desperate enough to craft a Willie Horton style attack ad darkly allowing the obvious innuendo here to flit across conservative television screens?"

Romney let go with Rudy's Willie Horton moment last week -- Repubs will give Rudy the benefit of the doubt on where to place a control center, they won't forgive his open invitation to illegal immigrants to hide out in New York as a sanctuary city. Look for that story to start building over the next few weeks.

Posted by: minion on August 11, 2007 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

OxyCon:/b> "IOKIYAR!"

What the Hell does that mean-- "Aloha" in Greek?

Oh my God -- I'm channeling my late grandfather.

I'm 46 years old. I'm simply way too young to start sounding like my grandfather. It's bad enough when I start sounding like my mother while talking to my daughters.

OK, now I'm depressed. This is all your fault. I need affirmation that I'm still young enough and vibrant enough to relate to the next generation.

Where's my bong?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 11, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Neil B.

No, I am afraid you are wrong. Rush Limbaugh came on his radio program in 1994 to breathlessly announce that Vince Foster had been killed following a lover's spat in an apartment rented by Hillary Clinton and his body dragged to Ft. Marcy Park. The clear implication was that Hillary did the killing.

Much of the right-wing mythology around Foster's death places Hillary at the scene of Foster's death - an assertion easily rebutted by looking at the front page of the New York Times on July 21, 1993. On the front page, next to the article about Foster's body being found in FOrt Marcy Park the day before, is an article about Hillary flying back from Japan and stopping off in Hawaii to give a speech. It is you who should not be so naive.

TCD

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on August 11, 2007 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Where's my bong?

Bong? Oh my gawd, you *are* old....

;)

Posted by: Disputo on August 11, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

How can offices located above ground be called a bunker?

Oh it was bunker, baby. It was a l-o-o-o-o-v-e bunker. A bunk' a bunk' a bunka hot steamin love. Bald hot Rudy love.

Okay, I'll stop now. I think I'm making myself feel a little ill.

Posted by: DrBB on August 11, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

minion: "Repubs will give Rudy the benefit of the doubt on where to place a control center, they won't forgive his open invitation to illegal immigrants to hide out in New York as a sanctuary city. Look for that story to start building over the next few weeks."

Oh, puh-leeese! Enough already with the constant dumping on illegal immigrants.

If you really fear "illegal immigration" -- which in your case is a euphemism for "brown people who don't speak English and disturb the feng-shui of my self-absorbed, white-bread existence" -- then I know a nice hole in the ground at Yucca Mountain, NV that you and your fellow xenophobes can crawl into and draw the manhole cover over.

It's your own party's corporate underwriters who benefit primarily from the curent influx of cheap immigrant labor, and who won't even let the current laws be enforced adequately.

Why do you clowns continue to insist on the punitive persecution of those desperately poor people -- most of whom are merely trying to support their own families -- while pointedly and hypocritically ignoring the well-funded and greedy corporate magnets that are drawing them across the border? You'd be better off herding cats, for all the good that approach will do.

Corporate behavior is the crux of the problem here, and that's where your focus should properly be -- that is, if illegal immigration is truly your big issue. It's been my considered experience that people like you usually have a whole host of issues, 99% of which should be addressed at least twice a week with intense psychotherapy, and not by statutory provision.

Aloha -- or, as OxyCon said, "IOKIYAR!"

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 11, 2007 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised that Brownback or Huckabee or one of the second-tier true conservatives haven't tried to vault themselves up a notch by taking Giuliani on head to head.

Tis rather curious. I mean, all three front-runners have some severe vulnerabilities that haven't been part of the debate amongst them. Romney's a flip flopper on abortion (and a lot of other things); McCain was against Bush before he was Bush's Greatest Suckup; Rudy is lying about his record, had extramarital affairs, shared a house with a gay guy etc.

NONE of them seem to be using this stuff to score points off each other. Which makes sense, because each one knows that once one starts it the others will have plenty of ammo for counter attacks. But yeah, why the lower tier candidates aren't going anywhere near this stuff is a mystery.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the whole GOP is in a delicate, if fiercely maintained, state of denial about the disasters of the last 6 years. I think it's instinctive. They all know what a massive fuckup their party has been overseeing for the last 6 years on all fronts, and it would absolutely destroy them if they all started pointing out the major blemishes in their front-runners' records. Wouldn't do any of 'em any good if the whole facade cracked and all that pus and corruption came running out. So they all have to do their part to keep that from happening.

Insofar as they let themselves even be aware of it, I'm sure they categorize it in positive terms as "party loyalty." Whatever. But so far it seems to work. IOKIYAR* still holds in the media, so all they have to do is not break the omerta and all will be fine.

*Donald: I'm sure someone will have said by the time I post this, but in case not: It's OK If You're A Republican.

Posted by: DrBB on August 11, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

D from H: All the times I've seen "corporate magnet" used as a solecism for "corporate magnate" and here it is being used appropriately. My hat is off to you, sir.

Posted by: DrBB on August 11, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

1. "His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator."

2. "Mayor Rudy Giuliani has angrily denied a newspaper report that he and his girfriend used the St. Regis Hotel as a 'love nest.'"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/06/politics/main295140.shtml

3. Next stop, Oval Office!

Posted by: Ross Best on August 11, 2007 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure it's only because of fastidious good taste that no one's yet uttered the phrase "fuckpad". Thank goodness I am not so burdened.

"Is that your fire horn?"
"It's not a fire horn but I'm pretty proud of it."

Posted by: Steve Paradis on August 11, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

Hal, I would bet that Kerik's Ground Zero love nest was *inspired* by what Giuliani had managed to create.

Posted by: Patience on August 11, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Donald,

How come folks that don't like prejudice always start off blabbing about "you people" - by you people do you mean Obama supporters? If you've read my recent comments you would know I'm not a doctrinare Republican, but I do what motivates them alot better than Kevin Drum. Conservatives sincerely believe that people that break inconvinient laws should not be rewarded for it, and Rudy's comments were over the line for them. Look for someone to start linking events like the recent Newark executions, by an illegal with a long felony rap sheet, to Rudy's sanctuary city endorsement.

Posted by: minion on August 11, 2007 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

perhaps some people will think i'm a bit of a middle-aged fogey about rudi & judi but:

when rudi marched in the st. patrick's day parade
with his mistress instead of his wife i thought that he was pushing the envelope a bit..... but a municipal sponsored free, plush, private love nest, every week-end,that's pushing right on through the old envelope

Posted by: wschneid25 on August 11, 2007 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, kevin, kevin...these weren't assignations, it is plainly obvious that Rudy was simply discussing security options, terrorism and disaster reponse with Nathan, she is a well known expert in these fields, and personally, i think the tax payers of New York should be grateful she was willing to share her expertise without a large consulting contract...

Posted by: Northzax on August 11, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

I think that many of the GOP candidates won't confront some of their opponents because several don't want to jeopardize their job prospects, or they want to have some political future in the GOP. For example, Mitt Romney is very wealthy, and he is not too old, so he may run for office again. Plus, the news media generally wants access to politicians and other high level people, so they are reluctant to confront them on these matters, either.

Posted by: Jeff on August 11, 2007 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

minion: "If you've read my recent comments you would know I'm not a doctrinare Republican, but I do what motivates them alot better than Kevin Drum."

Whatever, dude.

Frankly, I really don't give a rat's ass what makes Republicans "tick", because this type of racism and xenophobia to which Giuliani and the militant GOP constantly appeal is just sick, sick, sick! Further, such incindiary political pandering is an affront to all things decent and good in this country, and should never, ever be tolerated by anyone. Period.

My ex-wife (and still good friend) is Mexican-American, and a retired officer of 20 years' service with the U.S. Coast Guard. She served her country honorably. Have you?

Her parents are from the state of Coahuila in northern Mexico, and were undocumented immigrants until 1987, but are now American citizens, as are all her nine siblings. They don't deserve your xenophobic bullshit, and since they're not online to defend themselves here, I will.

The term "illegal immigration", whenever used by you people in the context of American politics nowadays, has become a red flag to all of us.

And all anybody has to do to see why is watch CNN or Fox News during the week, and listen closely during discussions about immigration policy to the majority of Republican-affiliated guests, with their talk of deploying troops on the U.S.-Mexican border, "Minutemen" vigiliante-style patrols, erecting electrified fences, etc.

That kind of emphasis certainly doesn't sound like you guys are too terribly interested in cracking down on employers who break the law by hiring the undocumented -- does it? Blaming the immigrants for the problem of illegal immigration solves nothing, and probably only appeals to your terribly misplaced sense of what it means to be a rational adult.

The fact that such blame is offered by the same crowd of buffoons who also support the Bush Administration's "The Iraq War is al Qa'eda's fault" meme, while certainly consistent, only shows me that you guys have no new ideas to offer on this or any other subject. As I said in my earlier post, and repeat here, you're only interested in herding cats.

Aloha.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 11, 2007 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. to minion: I just re-read my earlier post, and nowhere in that post did I ever say, "you people". I said, "you clowns", and I'll not make any apology for that terribly appropriate use of such terminology.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 11, 2007 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

"And I wonder which mud-slinging Republican opponent will finally get desperate enough to craft a Willie Horton style attack ad darkly allowing the obvious innuendo here to flit across conservative television screens?"

I don't think that will happen. The first time one Republican exposes that kind of hypocrisy, the flood gates would open, everybody would expose each other, and bye-bye GOP. As an organization, they just can't handle that kind of finger-pointing.

Posted by: Helena Montana on August 12, 2007 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINK

Giuliani and Gingrich as vp, what a family values ticket that would be

Posted by: PATRIOT on August 12, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Can't someone somewhere start calling it the love bunker? The Swift Boaters seem to have no trouble insinuating scurrilous connotations into seemingly inhospitable ecological niches. Surely a snideness about the truth can gain some currency.

Posted by: Lynn Lightfoot on August 12, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Lynn Lightfoot: I now take Rudi's anger about 9/11 at face value. Obviously, he did (and does not) not take terrorism seriously, it's just a political tool.

However, destuction of his love bunker, that's another thing. I think that really hurt his feelings.

Corpus Juris: that's what my Dad used to tell me if he thought I was bragging. Rudi does not exactly make his Dad proud, does he?

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on August 12, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

It's not just that the bunker was destroyed after being located in an obvious terrorist target. WTC 7, the building in which the bunker was located, probably would still be standing today if it had not contained the bunker. The bunker's fuel tanks exploded after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, causing WTC 7 to collapse as well.

Posted by: rea on August 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives sincerely believe that people that break inconvinient laws should not be rewarded for it

Oh, so conservatives think Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales ought to be prosecuted for illegal wiretapping?

Posted by: rea on August 12, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Willie Horton style attack ad?

What the hell are you talking about Kevin?

Are you paying currency to the Republican lie about Al Gore? Is there something about Giuliani using his bunker for sexual trysts that animates racists?

Please explain.

Posted by: James E. Powell on August 12, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

US Christianist are hypocrites. As long as Giuliani tells them what they want to hear they will vote for him no matter what his record.

Posted by: klyde on August 12, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

The immediately preceding lead-in to that paragraph excerpt is also remarkably instructive, though in quite a different way:

The 7 WTC site was the brainchild of Bill Diamond, a prominent Manhattan Republican that Giuliani had installed at the city agency handling rentals. When Diamond held a similar post in the Reagan administration a few years earlier, his office had selected the same building to house nine federal agencies. Diamond's GOP-wired broker steered Hauer to the building, which was owned by a major Giuliani donor and fundraiser. When Hauer signed onto it, he was locked in by the limitations Giuliani had imposed on the search and the sites Diamond offered him. The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that "very senior officials," specifically including Giuliani, "were involved," which he said was a major difference between this and other projects. ...

Isn't it remarkably peculiar that a building chosen as an ideal location to house NINE Federal agencies, as well as Giuliani's OEM command center and "love nest", should ultimately prove so structurally "unsound" that it allegedly collapsed after just a few hours as the result of minor fires on only two of its floors?

That was absolutely an historical FIRST: no other steel-framed building had EVER collapsed as a result of fires alone, even uncontained, raging infernos that ultimately gutted much of the structure after MANY hours. What's more, WTC 7 was neither hit by the planes NOR significantly damaged by any falling debris. Yet POOF! down it came.

The perplexing "collapse" of WTC 7 is one 9/11 "coincidence" that's just WAY too bizarre to accept casually.

Posted by: Poilu on August 12, 2007 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

The bunker's fuel tanks exploded after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, causing WTC 7 to collapse as well.

rea: Where did you get this information? (Can you point me to an authoritative source?)

The ONLY insinuation of any direct cause I've yet encountered for the "collapse " of WTC 7 was a statement made by the owner, Larry Silverstein, that they had "decided to pull it". (Of course, that would actually contradict an assertion of structural failure entirely!)

Posted by: Poilu on August 12, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Here's more on Rudy: http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2007-08-09/news2.html and http://www.rmchronicle.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1138

Bottom line:

"If Rudy wins the GOP nomination, as many early polls are predicting, he stands a good chance of winning the presidency. And he's already stated that his plan for Iraq would double the number of that Bush has dedicated to his 'surge.'

"America's Mayor as America's President could be much more dangerous than George W. Bush."

Posted by: stlcolo on August 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

"WTC 7, the building in which the bunker was located, probably would still be standing today if it had not contained the bunker. The bunker's fuel tanks exploded after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, causing WTC 7 to collapse as well."

Oh, is that what caused WTC 7 to collapse? I always wondered about that.

Posted by: Heh on August 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly