Rudy Giuliani: Post-9/11 Riches rather than Serving in the Iraq Study Group

By Brigitte L. Nacos
9/11 and the fact that he was New York’s mayor at the time made Rudy Giuliani a very wealthy man. Without 9/11 and his widely praised role as the city’s crisis manager-in-chief, Giuliani wouldn’t have collected super-high fees for his speaking engagements or lucrative contracts at home and abroad for his consulting firm. Never mind that serious questions about the city’s emergency preparedness on Giuliani’s watch and the actual response to the 9/11 attacks were raised. Without 9/11, Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t be one of the frontrunners in the field of Republican contenders for the GOP’s presidential nomination. But even with the White House in his sight, “America’s Mayor” was more interested in adding to his wealth and collecting campaign contributions rather than in public service and a unique chance to educate himself on foreign and defense policies. As a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, Newsday reveals today, Giuliani did not find the time to attend meetings because he made “paid public appearances” at the time and eventually resigned from the group. According to the Newsday story,

“Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said. Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.”

Indeed, as an active member of the Study Group Giuliani would have had a unique chance to educate himself on the dismal situation in Iraq and the problems plaguing the whole region. A solid background and fact-finding on the most difficult problems of our time should be a must for any presidential contender—especially one like Rudy who has no experience in foreign and defense policies. Having not served in the military as others in his age bracket, this hawk on Iraq and the “war on terrorism” cannot claim personal knowledge of fighting in a war either. Had he been an active member of the panel throughout its existence, Giuliani would have had a chance to visit Iraq as other members of the group did. But perhaps he figured that he got all the information needed from his (no longer?) friend, former New York police commissioner and would-be Secretary of Homeland Security Bernard Kerik, who went to Iraq in 2003 to train a new Iraqi police force that four years later cannot hold its own yet.

Following the first Republican debate at the Reagan library, Giuliani said, “I have tremendous admiration for President Bush. I guess in the first debate when some of my Republican colleagues were trying to distance themselves I went ahead and I said, you know, we Republicans should be talking about the things President Bush has done right. I think President Bush made the single biggest decision of his presidency correctly. He put us on offense against terrorism. I will always admire him for that.”

More recently, "Giuliani said he would consider increasing U.S. troops in Iraq if the head of military operations there, U.S. Army General David Petraeus, requested them." That's more than the president is willing to commit at this point.

With 9/11 as his major selling point, Giuliani emphasizes the need for a strong leader like himself in the White House. The problem is that strong leaders without strong commitments to inform themselves on the problems and issues they face make ill-informed and, yes, wrong decisions.

“By giving up his seat on the [Iraq Study Group] panel,” Newsday writes, “Giuliani has opened himself up to charges that he chose private-sector paydays and politics over unpaid service on a critical issue facing the nation.” 

One more reminder that we need to ask ourselves during election campaigns, not afterwards, what qualities and priorities we demand from our public “servants.”

Comments

[appealf]

Hi !!!
http://antergerd.com
There was merrily!
The Good lad an author! I much like site!

[Haree]

Very interesting site ! Good work ! Congratulations :)

[John]

How typically liberal.

If he was on the panel - you'd say he was there for political reasons.

Since he's not on the pane - you say he should have been....

but your reasoning is that he should have been on the panel....FOR POLITICAL REASONS!

The argument made is that he should have been on the panel because he, "would have had a unique chance to educate himself on the dismal situation in Iraq and the problems plaguing the whole region."

Those on the panel included:
2 Former Secretaries of State, 3 former members of congress, 2 former Presidential advisors, a former attorney general, a former Supreme Court Justice, and a former Secretary of Defense.

And liberals are now complaining because a former city mayor wasn't on the panel? Give me a break.

If he had been - you'd have clamored that someone on the left, like John Edwards or Al Gore - someone with political aspirations, be given the same opportunity to serve on the panel to avoid giving Rudy a 'leg-up' on 2008.

Hypocrites all - on the left.

[Livewire]

Thank goodness Fooliani is being exposed! LIVEWIRE predicts Ghouliani is not getting the nomination- he is an egomaniac opportunist DICKtator who has milked 911 for millions with his speaking fees. Any monkey could've acted tough and brave during 911; RON PAUL is the true hero!