Revisiting Rudy's Legacy

Yesterday morning, Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice and Dan Collins of CBS News appeared on WNYC's Brian Lehrer show, guest hosted by Beth Fertig, to discuss their just-released book, The Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11. About that terrible day, Collins said, "It was a day in which you saw Giuliani at his best, and you saw him at his worst. Unfortunately, the latter hasn't received much publicity." According to him and Barrett, "Rudy really wasn't in the game as far as counterterrorism is concerned ... despite his later claims and claims that continue to this day. The hindsight machine sort of kicked into operation after 9-11, and Rudy billed himself as a terrorism expert."

The two authors focused in particular on the siting of the emergency command center -- "Would a man who was concerned about terrorism insist that his command center be located within walking distance of city hall? Would a man who was concerned about terrorism have placed it in the World Trade Center? Would a man who was concerned about terrorism have rented the space from one of his campaign contributors [Larry Silverstein]?" -- as well as the supposed lack of preparation for a major high-rise disaster and serious shortcomings in interagency emergency communications systems (the failures of which, many charge, cost perhaps hundreds of lives). Fertig and callers to the show pushed back pretty hard on the weight of these claims, as they should have, and the interview is well worth a listen so that you can make up your own mind about the arguments.

But Barrett and Collins's book raises other interesting questions: Over the last five years, has Giuliani gotten a pass from the media regarding his performance on 9/11? And if so, isn't it well past time to go back and scrutinize his performance both on that day and in the years leading up to the attacks?

The questions are all the more imperative in light of the rampant speculation -- fueled by, among others, Howard Fineman and Bob Novak (I know, I know) -- that Giuliani is gearing up for a presidential run in 2008. If that's the case, Giuliani's bona fides on terrorism and many voters' emotional connection to him because of his visibility that day (when the President was largely missing in action) are sure to figure prominently. Indeed, while his numbers are unlikely to remain wholly intact in the event of an actual run, Giuliani consistently polls near or ahead John McCain in matchups for the GOP's nomination (see, for instance, this just released Iowa poll), even though some conservatives strongly question whether Giuliani could actually emerge victorious from a primary fight. In polls for a possible general election, Giuliani so far beats pretty much every major Democratic contender (including Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Edwards).

Even Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, are now admitting that they didn't question Giuliani about his performance leading up to the terrorist attacks with the appropriate level of rigor. In their new book, they write that Giuliani's testimony was "a low point in the commission's questioning of witnesses at our public hearings." Kean added in an interview, "Rudy Giuliani talking about that day can transfix you, because it is so dramatic, and he is so dramatic talking about it, that instead of asking hard questions, we really commended him. That's fine, except the public deserved the same kind of hard questions we'd asked everybody else. And we just didn't do it." (When Hamilton wrapped up his questioning of Giuliani, an audience member audibly remarked, "Stop kissing ass. Three thousand people are dead.")

If Kean and Hamilton failed, so too have most news organizations. After the commissioners questioned New York City fire and police officials, they were strongly criticized on some of the city's editorial pages for supposedly suggesting that the city's heroes may have been responsible for some avoidable deaths on that tragic day; the co-chairs now say this had much to do with their tepid questioning of Giuliani. Meanwhile, one never had to look far in order to find a laudatory headline praising the performance of the man alternately heralded as "America's Mayor" and "The Mayor of the World." Even when news outlets portray Giuliani in a critical light, they focus pretty much exclusively on the complaints about cronyism, police abuse, and suppression of free expression under his tenure. It's almost as if the press has had a 9/11 blind spot preventing them from going back and asking hard questions.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the deference accorded by the media to government officials was unsurprising and understandable. It was an awful, heartbreaking day, and the nation was focused on picking up the pieces (both literal and figurative), processing the horrifying events, and figuring out how best to respond. To his everlasting credit, Giuliani was one of a number of high-profile politicians who, it is no understatement to say, helped heal the nation's scars. Revisiting the day's events isn't easy for any of us, but, five years after the fact, with the threat of terrorism still hanging over us and with Giuliani possibly gearing up for an even more powerful position on the world stage, it's well past time for journalists to do what reporters like Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins are doing -- casting a critical eye on Giuliani's terrorism preparedness and bringing to light any possible shortcomings. Whether efforts like that of Barrett and Collins is convincing is another matter -- as it happens, I'm skeptical about some of their claims -- but it's the job of journalists to pursue and unearth even uncomfortable truths, and the more (legitimate) efforts and the more (constructive) discussions about the issues that are available, the better for an informed democracy.

Barrett and Collins have asked some hard questions. Will other reporters follow their lead?