MSNBC discussed Giuliani's attack on Democrats over terrorism, did not question Giuliani's own record on terrorism
On the April 25 edition of MSNBC Live, hosts Norah O'Donnell and Chris Jansing discussed an April 24 speech by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) in which he asserted that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, "[W]e are going on defense" in combating terrorism. Giuliani further stated, "If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." But in discussing the strategy behind Giuliani's argument, neither O'Donnell and Jansing nor their respective guests -- McClatchy Washington Bureau chief political correspondent Steven Thomma and U.S. News & World Report chief White House correspondent Kenneth Walsh -- noted questions surrounding Giuliani's record on the issues of terrorism and national security, which Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. Indeed, in a speech televised on MSNBC less than an hour before O'Donnell's segment, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared to make reference to Giuliani's questionable record on those issues.
In the speech, in which McCain officially announced his presidential bid, he appeared to attack Giuliani's record on emergency preparedness, as blogger Atrios (Media Matters Senior Fellow Duncan Black) noted. New York Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Michael Cooper wrote: "McCain sought to undercut what had been the former mayor's biggest political claim to fame -- his stewardship of New York City after the attacks of Sept. 11 -- by noting the problems with firefighters' radios on the day of the attack that made it impossible for city authorities to order rescue workers out of the Twin Towers." An April 26 Los Angeles Times article further reported that McCain "alluded to accusations by Giuliani critics," but also reported that "McCain ...denied later that he was specifically referring to Giuliani." From McCain's speech:
McCAIN: We must also prepare, far better than we have, to respond quickly and effectively to another terrorist attack or natural calamity. When Americans confront a catastrophe, natural or man-made, they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. They won't accept that firemen and policemen are unable to communicate with each other in an emergency because they don't have the same radio frequency. They won't accept the government's failure to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies or rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. They won't accept substandard care and indifference for our wounded veterans.
That's not good enough for America. And when I'm President, it won't be good enough for me.
In the book Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 (HarperCollins, 2006), Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett and CBSNews.com senior producer Dan Collins cited what they said were Giuliani's terrorism-related failures before, during, and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For instance, Barrett and Collins wrote that "[e]veryone agrees that a critical problem that day was that the police and fire departments could not communicate; that's one of the reasons the lack of interoperable radios became such a focus of fury" (Page 343). Indeed, on 9-11, the New York fire department was using outdated VHF radios that were incompatible with the police department's UHF radios. After 9-11, Giuliani baselessly suggested that the fire department continued using radios that were incompatible with the police department's radios because "[t]hose [compatible] radios do not exist today" (Page 218). However, Barrett and Collins noted that at the time of Giuliani's statement, most other cities had interoperable radios: "The U.S. Conference of Mayors had just completed a study of 192 cities that found that 77 percent had radios that were interoperable across police and fire departments" (Page 218). Moreover, Giuliani's administration spent millions of dollars and several years procuring UHF radios for the fire department. However, after issuing those radios on March 14, 2001, the fire department took them out of service less than two weeks later after problems with them arose.
As a result, Barrett and Collins wrote, on the day of the attacks, the fire department was using "the same radios ... as it had in 1993. In fact, it essentially had been using the same radios since the 1960s, though they were more suitable for a burning three-story walk-up than for a steel inferno" (Page 49). Because the old radios were not powerful enough, "as many as eight Fire Department companies in the North Tower did not receive the evacuation order 'via radio or directly from other first responders,' " according to the 9-11 Commission (Page 50). And because the radios were not interoperable, fire department rescuers never heard the police helicopter "pilot warning that the South Tower was about to fall" or "the pilots repeatedly warn[ing] of the North Tower collapse, as early as 25 minutes before it happened" (Page 51).
As Media Matters noted, a March 15 Cox News Service article reported: "As revered as he is by many for his efforts after the attacks, Giuliani is reviled by some firefighters who believe he mishandled the development of a radio system that could have saved lives on 9/11 and turned his back on first responders' remains in the rubble." A March 30 Associated Press article further noted criticisms by the International Association of Fire Fighters and by Sally Regenhard, chairwoman of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign and mother of a firefighter killed on 9-11. The AP noted that the Giuliani "administration's failure to provide the World Trade Center's first responders with adequate radios [is] a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed. The Sept. 11 Commission noted the firefighters at the World Trade Center were using the same ineffective radios employed by the first responders to the 1993 terrorist attack on the trade center."
Additionally, as Media Matters has documented, Barrett and Collins wrote that when Giuliani heard about the disaster on 9-11, his "original destination" was the "much-ballyhooed command center he had built in the shadow of the Twin Towers," in the 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) building (Page 6). However, when Giuliani arrived, then-New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik "decided it was too dangerous to bring the mayor up to the command center he had so carefully and expensively built" (Page 340). In settling on the downtown location, Giuliani "overruled" warnings from Howard Safir, a previous police commissioner, and Lou Anemone, chief operating officer of the New York police department, not to put the command center at 7 WTC and rejected "an already secure, technologically advanced city facility across the Brooklyn Bridge" (Page 41). Later on 9-11, the 7 WTC building collapsed.
Barrett and Collins also wrote that "Giuliani's preference for the comfort of a huge entourage had disconnected the city's management and its fighting force at a crucial moment" during the response on 9-11, and they pointed to Kerik as "a prime example of this managerial dysfunction." They reported that in the 102 minutes between the first impact of a plane into the World Trade Center and the collapse of the North Tower, "Kerik became Giuliani's bodyguard, just as he had been in the 1993 mayoral campaign," rather than leading the police's efforts (Page 350).
During their appearances on MSNBC, Thomma and Walsh suggested that Giuliani was going to campaign on terrorism but did not note questions about his record on the issue. Thomma told O'Donnell: "[F]or Mayor Giuliani or, basically, any Republican to say they think they would keep the country safer than the Democrats seems to me the perfectly legitimate and probably vital part of the coming campaign." Walsh told Jansing: "I think he is trying to appeal to this Republican security core, the people who are most concerned about keeping America safe from terrorism, which is Giuliani's core supporters, too, in the Republican primaries."
On-screen graphics during the two segments were titled "Giuliani: GOP Makes U.S. Safer" and at various points read: "Rudy Giuliani Argues Democrats Want to Put the U.S. on 'Defense' "; "GOP Frontrunner: Dems Want to Return to Pre-9/11 Mindset"; "Rudy Giuliani: GOP Will Shorten Terror War, Save American Lives"; and "Bush Administration Has Argued the Dems Have Wrong Approach to War."




From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the April 25 edition of MSNBC Live:
O'DONNELL: And according to Rudy Giuliani, Democrats don't understand our enemies and will surrender in Iraq if they win the White House in 2008. Speaking about the opposition party last night, Giuliani said, quote, "If one of them gets elected, it sounds like to me we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag on Iraq. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality." Steve Thomma is chief political correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers. Steve, thanks so much for joining us. Let me ask you --
THOMMA: Hi, Norah.
O'DONNELL: -- what do you make of Rudy Giuliani sort of laying this on the table when it comes to his Democratic opponents?
THOMMA: Well, it's kind of two things at work here, Norah. In the first, for Mayor Giuliani or, basically, any Republican to say they think they would keep the country safer than the Democrats seems to me the perfectly legitimate and probably vital part of the coming campaign. Why else would you run if you didn't think you could do a better job? It's when you start talking about -- and I think he also said that if the Democrats win, we'll have more casualties, in effect saying more Americans will die if the Democrats win, then it gets into the kind of politically inflammatory rhetoric that I think we've seen in the past couple of months Americans don't like. George Bush tried that at the midterm elections when he said, "If the Democrats win, America loses, and the terrorists win." They voted the Republicans out.
O'DONNELL: Well, we've already seen the Democrats respond pretty harshly this morning. Let me read you a statement from Democratic Senator Barack Obama [IL], who said, quote, "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low, and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America's Mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. The threat we face is real and deserve better than to be the punch line of another political attack." Could it that be that Rudy Giuliani's words -- essentially, once again saying Democrats will bring us back to pre-9-11 mentality -- that that could back fire on him?
THOMMA: Oh, sure. I think it could. As I said, in the '06 midterm elections just a few months ago, the American people voted the Republicans out and voted the Democrats in despite very similar warnings. And we see from the polls since then, a majority of Americans now trust the Democrats more than the Republicans on national defense. That's a historic change. Not for 40 years that Americans trusted the Democrats on national defense, and I think a big part of it is -- and this goes back to the Bush strategy when he linked the Iraq war to terrorism -- that once the Iraq war started going bad, people started trusting Republicans less to defend against terrorism.
O'DONNELL: Steve Thomma, thanks so much.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the April 25 edition of MSNBC Live:
JANSING: Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani is throwing down the gauntlet on national security, not going after his primary challengers, but Democrats who he says want to wave the white flag on the war on terror. Speaking at an event in New Hampshire, Giuliani warned that if a Republican doesn't win the White House, the result will be the loss of more American lives. Ken Walsh, the U.S. News & World Report chief White House correspondent, joins me now. Hi there, Ken.
WALSH: Hi. Nice to be back.
JANSING: Let me tell you exactly what Giuliani said. I'm quoting here, "I listened to the Democrats and if one of them is elected, we are going on the defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense." What's Giuliani's strategy here?
WALSH: Well, obviously, I think he is trying to appeal to this Republican security core, the people who are most concerned about keeping America safe from terrorism, which is Giuliani's core supporters, too, in the Republican primaries. But I think there's a real risk in that it arises -- causes to arise a lot of the concerns about Giuliani that people have. Polarizing -- he was a very polarizing figure as mayor. A lot of people feel that he will go back to that again. And if he alienates too many Democrats and independents by seeming to be too polarizing -- and he's already gotten a lot of negative response from Democrats about this.















the real joke is that he can support bush, a guy who ignored all the warnings when the 9-11 commission said "the system was blinking red".
condi rice to the 9-11 commission on 4-8-04 on why the bush administration did not respond to the cole bombing: "i do not believe to this day it would have been a good thing to respond to the cole..". she went on later to say that doing so would only "embolden" the terrorists. also this statement: "on an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the clinton administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the [al qaeda] network. clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." bush to bob woodward about bin ladin: "i was not...there was a significant difference in my attitude after sept. 11. i was not on point, but i knew he was a menace , and i knew he was a problem." obviously not enough of a "problem" for our sleepy head leader to like, oh i don't know, maybe have a meeting or two about him. the 9-11 report page 260: "he [bush] did not recall discussing the aug 6 report ["bin ladin determined to strike in u.s."] with the attorney general or whether rice had done so." rudy?
the media is making a big deal out of tenet's new book. but a lot of it is nothing new. there were many warnings from many people in that summer and all were ignored by the bush administration. in his book "the one percent doctrine" ron suskind said that a cia briefer flew to crawford to emphasize the importance of the august 6 pdb "bin ladin determined to strike in u.s.". bush dismissed him with the words "you've covered your ass now". i've never seen the wihite house deny that story. 9-11 report page 265: "[acting fbi director] pickard told us that after two such briefings [attorney general] ashcroft did not want to hear about the threats anymore [in july and august 2001]." "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat." page 259: "on june 30 [2001], the s.e.i.b. contained an article titled 'bin ladin threats are real'. yet [national security adviser] hadley told tenet in july that deputy secretary of defense paul wolfowitz had questioned the reporting."
The moderate amount of respect I had for Guiliani has been vastly diminished because of this cheap politically motivated speech.
These types of thinly veiled accusations during political campaigns are the reasons so many tune out.
Rudy, tell us what you will do as President and forget the baseless attacks on your opponents.
Tommy,
I'm surprised at you. Do you not realize that MMFA is using the selective quotes to advance their agenda? Haven't you learned yet, never to take anything MMFA's selective quoting at face value?
Is it not a fair political point to argue that if elected, Giuliani thinks he will do a better job in the war on terror than the Democrats? Of course it is political.
Here is part of Giuliani's quote from that speech:
The question is going to be, "How long does it take, and how many losses do we have along the way?" And I truly believe if we go back on defense for a period of time, we can ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer. The power of our ideas is so great we'll eventually prevail. The real question is, "How do we get there?" Do we get there in a way in which it is as expeditious as possible and with as little loss of life as possible, or do we get there in some circuitous fashion.
Cannot one argue that repealing parts of the Patriot act, cutting back on surveillance, and interrogation, not to mention cutting and running from Iraq, will put the U.S. in a defensive mode?
It is in no way a cheap political shot. It is a very legitimate issue.
You want to see a cheap shot? Take a look at Howard Dean, making up quotes about what Giuliani said.
Late yesterday afternoon the Democratic National Committee sent an email bearing the signature of chairman Howard Dean (reproduced at Little Green Footballs), in which he misquotes Giuliani outright:In fact, the first sentence in the Giuliani "quote" was not something Giuliani said but something Roger Simon of The Politico wrote.
see: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009991
So because Howard Dean allegedly misquoted Giuliani (I take everything AA posts with an entire mine of salt), that means MMfA was incorrect when they quoted him correctly?
You really are logic-impaired, aren't you?
Take it easy easy.
Apparently you cannot see the distinction I made for Tommy.
If you look at the quotes above, they are primarily of talking heads interpreting Giuliani. I supplied a quote to illustrate my point that MMFA is very selective in it's threads and agenda driven. Not that is a secret.
I then posted as a reminder to all the fair minded people out there, the quotes of the DNC Chairman to illustrate what actually is a cheap political shot.
I hope my explanation helps!.
AA,
You're making this about this website and their selectivity....that is a given. However, that was not my beef with this particular thread, it was Guiliani's speech.
We respectfully disagree, apparently.
it's from LFG, another freeper-wannabe site that has never shied away from lying
Bogus! What Rudy said was absolutely a cheap shot. He is telling the public the a vote for dem is a vote for death. Conservative scare tactics at there worse.
Talk to the NYPD/FD about what they really think about Rudy.
AA,
I did not base my opinion on what this website said about Guiliani's speech. I read his speech and stand by what I said. He is cleverly intimating that voting for a Democrat could lead to another terrorist attack, and that is ridiculous and unfounded.
I am not convinced that I want a Democrat in charge either, but not for that reason - and I may disagree with certain tactics or strategy they may use, but that is far different from exploiting a tragedy like 9/11 and using it as a fear mongering campaign tool.
As for Howard Dean, he is the king of cheap political shots - and what he says about anything is basically irrelevant to me.
Exactly how i feel about you, Tommy. Now, as for proof...
Your cheap shots are here on this site for all to read, and they are plentiful, indeed. Could you please point out some of what you consider to be Dean's cheap shots? Do not hesitate to be clear, lucid, and concise.
I would argue that it is not. You may think that having a Democrat in the White House will actually improve our chances of preventing another 9/11. So, is that assumption a cheap shot?
You can disagree with Giuliani, but for him to talk about homeland security and how he thinks he's the best man to lead our country and protect it's citizens is hardly a cheap political speech.
AA,
I would prefer no candidate approach the subject in that context, who or wouldn't be better to ward off another attack. That is an emotional argument which serves nothing except to enflame voters into voting against someone out of fear.
I prefer candidates tell you and I what they would do as President, not present scenarios in this context that are not able to be proven or disproven in any substantive way.
"You may think that having a Democrat in the White House will actually improve our chances of preventing another 9/11. So, is that assumption a cheap shot?"
-----
No, it's the truth. Bill Clinton gave the incoming Bush Administration all the information they had on Al Qaeda. Richard Clarke knew that the threats were real, and almost pleaded with the administration to hold meetings to assess the danger and plan to alleviate it. How many meetings of Dick Cheney's terrorist task force took place during the time from the election to 9/11? Let me give you a hint, the number was less than one. You do the arithmetic.
If the Democrats do even the smallest thing possible to try to prevent another 9/11, it will be more than the Republicans ever did to prevent the 9/11 that happened on their watch. Actually, that's not quite correct. It really didn't happen on their watch, because no one in the Bush administration was watching.
I said this before, but I think many folks completely over estimated Guiliani. They they act as though he actually stopped 9/11 when the bottom line is that it happened on his watch. True enough he said the right things after the even, but as the mayor he damn well should have. This incident is just indefensible, he basically threatening the public with terrorist actions if they elect a Dem. I thought this was a free country.
If Obama doen't have enough experience to be president, then in what reality is Guiliani qualified?
I guess if you take a stand against Elephant dong you can be President.
I thought Elephant Dung was the Pre.......
Nope. too obvious.
The love of Rudy by the media is mindboggling.
I assume you mean to say dung and not DONG.
Yes I meant Dung.
Doris,
So can I say you are in favor of pictures with elephant dung, cut-out rear views of buttocks with vag***s peeping underneath surrounding an image of the Virgin Mary?
You apparantly cannot see why Catholics might be offended but Giuliani saying he'll do a better job protecting you as President does?
It seems to me you have exhibited what I would call another example of liberal logic.
Your a prime example of someone who stretches the truth and divides America.
hahaha... Thanks for the laugh. Maybe you can explain yourself? Did I say anything disrespectful or false? I guess by your logic, anyone who doesn't agree with you is devisive. Is that it?
Apparently you don't want to discuss ideas. You just want to get in your cheap shot and run away. You are not alone. It happens here all the time. Ho hum.
"anyone who doesn't agree with you is devisive. Is that it?"
-----
No, devisive people are those who use devices. Divisive people are the ones who post anti-logic like yours.
I'd go as far as to say that your initial post is a great example of neocon logic.
By the way I am a Catholic and I was not offended. I am offended that Rudy married his cousin, cheated on his wife and his current wife killed dogs. But that should not be an issue in the Election. His record of division and hate should be.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
BTW, I didn't say every Catholic was offended.
As for your issue with Giuliani's personal life, it if isn't an issue why did you bring it up? (Liberal logic strikes again.)
As for your issue with Giuliani's personal life, it if isn't an issue why did you bring it up? (Liberal logic strikes again.) - anotheramerican / Thursday April 26, 2007 05:17:18 PM EST
AA: He said it should not be an issue in the election, meaning the media needs to take the focus off the irrelevancies of Giuliani’s private life, which BTW you DO realize are a big deal to the Republican base he's trying to charm, which is why the media won't leave it alone. And yes, he DID mention these things, by name. That, in and of itself, does not make the poster an endorser of that as an issue, or the mere mentioning of those irrelevant issues a contradiction. Republicans love to assert that talking about something, to make a point, is as radical and permanent as express endorsement. Dare to mention that race shouldn't be an issue with Obama and poof! "look they're playing the race card!" is heard 'round the Red States. But if Limbaugh or some other loyal water carrier says "Obama is a half-rican", a comment whose entire raison d’etre IS race, then from the bottom of the deck comes the "what I meant" or "I was joking" cards. Seems to me that archconservatives, such as you, don’t have a problem with what liberals say, just what liberals mean, for you, I have observed, have the most disturbing tendency to filter out the speaker’s/writer’s message in favor of YOUR message.Blinkers work wonders for a horse, not a human. Please take yours off before you crash.
RandySorry for the tiny font. Copy and paste is still an adventure!
Randy
I'm not offended by art.
I am offended that Guiliani allowed the workers to continue digging without respirators after the WTCs collapsed. He was willing to do anything to get the city back in business.
I am also offended that he played the shill for GWB before the election by transferring blame from Bush and Rumsfeld to the troops for the looting of hundreds of tons of explosives and weapons from the Al QaQaa munitions dump in Iraq prior to the fall of Baghdad.
These weapons have been killing Americans since they were looted and will continue to kill Americans until we have left the country.
Rudy Guiliani is willing to say or do anything, willing to harm any and all to protect his precious Republican party. He is truly an evil MF.
I can see you are not offended by making outrageous claims either to support your points. Please document them if you can. Then lets talk.
In October, 2004 Rudy said the following about the looted munitions on "The Today Show":
"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough?"
Here is a link to the New York City PBA's website which says that the city knew the air was full of hazardous materials at ground zero after the workers returned to the financial district.
[link to www.nycpba.org]
My claims were not outrageous but common knowledge to anyone who's been paying attention.
I should probably give you the benefit of the doubt since the only person who could say my claim was outrageous is one who has not been inundated with the news of rescue workers who've died and are dying due to George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani and Christine Todd Whitman's haste to show the world that New York was back on it's feet.
The deaths of these brave men are in our local newspapers, everyday. The reports are on our local news reports, everyday. We see our neighbor's getting sicker, everyday.
My other claim about the looting of the munitions and St. Rudy providing cover for the administration is also common knowledge.
I used to understand your reasoning and see how you believed what you claim to believe. Now, I'm convinced that you're willing to disparage anyone to advance your agenda.
Yes, AA. Freedom of expression applies to things with which I disagree. Standing up in favor of what I agree with is easy. It's standing up for the expression of ideas with thich one disagrees that makes America great.
The ideas you express, AA, are not what make America great. The terrorists hate us for our freedoms, Bush says. So, to try and prevent future terrorist attacks, Bush's solution is to remove our freedoms.
So where's Osama Bin Laden, Rudy?
Where's the anthrax killer?
Thats not an issue according to Rudy and the GOP. They just want to divide America and attack people who are not apart of their machine.
The GOP excoriated Bill Clinton because he got a hummer. Rudy moved his mistress into the Governor's mansion while his wife was still living there, and the "party of family values" sees nothing wrong with it.
I just looked up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, and it merely read, "See entry for Republican Party, The."