Rudy Giuliani: CA$HING IN ON 9/11

The prospect of a former city mayor leading the Republican party's list of presidential hopefuls - a list that includes both current and former senators, governors, veterans, a former speakers of the house - is a truly astonishing idea. A man with no experience in national government or foreign policy, a person who has been out of politics for nearly six years is enjoying roughly 2 to 1 favorability ratings and is polling virtually neck-and-neck with leading Democratic candidates in an election year where the general public undeniably favors electing a Democratic president in 2008.

So to what should we attribute Rudy's early 2008 successes?

-His alleged ties to organized crime and disgraced NYC Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik?
-The way he "singlehandedly" diminished crime in NYC? (despite the fact that crime was down nationally over the same period)

-The scandal surrounding cocaine trafficking by his South Carolina campaign chairman?
-His ever-changing stance on gun control?
-His personal life? (He has been married thrice, once to his second-cousin, and twice to "live-in" mistresses.)

Okay, so we all know why Rudy Giuliani is the Republican frontrunner in 2008. Two words: Nine Eleven. But has anyone who supports Giuliani's candidacy on the assumption that he was this "hero" really examined these claims? Has anyone really questioned the ethical conviction of a person that would exploit the deaths of thousands of fellow Americans for political and financial gain?

In fact, Giuliani has never been shy about touting his 9/11 "credentials" either. In April of 2007, Giuliani claimed that if a Democrat were elected in 2008, America would be at greater risk of another 9/11-type terrorist attack. He has also claimed to have been at ground zero "as often, if not more, than most of the workers." The media hasn't exactly helped to dispel Giuliani's hero status, referring to him on several occasions as "America's Mayor", "Mayor of the World," the "Hero of 9/11," and bestowing upon him some unfounded "expertise on terrorism." All of this gushing might have one believing that Rudy Giuliani had stopped the 9/11 terrorists, or had since took up arms and defeated them. A closer examination of Giuliani's handling of the 9/11 attacks has in actuality exposed layers of incompetence and corruption stemming from Giuliani himself. And above all, Giuliani has been guilty of the despicable act of propping himself up as a national hero for financial and political gain. If being in the right place at the right time makes one a hero, then by all means, I implore you to vote for this man. But first let's examine some of Rudy's post-9/11 "good fortune:"

• Was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2001


• In 2002, he received an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II of England


• Used his 9/11 fame to start a consulting and security firm, Giuliani Partners, which has since earned an estimated $100 million.


• Was appointed as a panelist on the Iraq Study Group, only to resign five months in after missing all of the group's scheduled meetings.


• Commanded a $100,000 fee (plus expenses) per speaking engagement, grossing over $11 million from January 2006 to February 2007.


• Campaigning on 9/11 name recognition and tough talk about terrorism, Giuliani currently leads his nearest competitor by about 10 points for the 2008 Republican nomination.

If this weren't enough to cement Giuliani as, well, an opportunist, to put it nicely, Rudy's latest attempt to exploit the 9/11 tragedy should leave most Americans ill. According to the Associated Press:

The International Association of Fire Fighters accused Republican Rudy Giuliani of exploiting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because a supporter is holding a $9.11-per-person fundraiser for the presidential candidate.

The union — already a vocal critic of Giuliani's — said Tuesday that the fundraiser's $9.11 for Rudy" theme is an abuse of the image and symbols of the 2001 attacks.

"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at ground zero," IAFF president Harold Schaitberger said.

This is merely the latest episode in Rudy Giuliani's enduring effort to permanently embed the Giuliani-9/11 link into the subconscious of all Americans. I wouldn't be surprised to see him at the next Republican debate, with a freshly tattooed "9/11" emblazoned upon his forehead. His latest $9.11 fundraiser is slightly more vile in my opinion, because it is an apt microcosm of everything Giuliani has done since 9/11: He has now literally attached a dollar sign to 9/11, something he has only been guilty of in a figurative sense until now.

In a way, I can hardly blame him. With all of Rudy's aforementioned shortcomings, it's easy to see why he clings so desperately to his 9/11 notoriety. Without it, he has nothing. He could eradicate all of the porn and sex shops and prostitution in the whole world, and he still wouldn't be fit to be President of the United States. But 9/11 gives him this illusory credibility as some expert on terrorism and foreign policy. I mean, what would Rudy Giuliani know about the Iraq War to the degree that he would be nominated for one of only 10 positions on the Iraq Study Group panel? Giuliani's claims of his own 9/11 heroism are flimsy enough as it is. The idea that Giuliani could be elected on 9/11 fame alone is not only inconceivable in my opinion, but also would qualify as just about the lowest form of exploitation one could ever imagine.

Shooting Down the Pro-Gun Logic

Recently, Virginia Tech played it's first football game since the April shooting that left 32 students dead. This, along with the recent antics of Ted Nugent, got me thinking again about gun-control and the pro-gun lobby. Clearly, in countries where guns are less available, or banned altogether, citizens experience markedly less gun-related crime. But that's never evidence enough for gun people. The whole pro-gun logic is faulty to begin with, but here is a run-down (and rebuttal) of their greatest hits:

1. We need guns to defend ourselves.

What's wrong with pepper spray or a stun-gun? Why does defending oneself naturally mean killing the other guy? I think we should all be allowed to carry non-lethal arms. That would do the trick. Let the police carry the real guns.

2. Only criminals kill people with guns.

That's like saying only rapists rape people. Every criminal was a non-criminal at some point in their life. The VT gunman wasn't a criminal. Well, not until he killed 32 people with his legally-purchased handgun.

3. Guns don't kill people....If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way, gun or otherwise.

Someone please tell me how the gunman at VT could have killed 32 classmates with a hunting knife or a slingshot? Something tells me that if he didn't have the ability and the precedent to blow away a lot of people with a gun for the spectacle of it, he wouldn't have killed anyone.

4. The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.

Okay, so maybe the Family Guy interpretation is a stretch, but the 2nd amendment is certainly ambiguous and outdated. It was written in a time when there were regular militias, a young, unstable government, and a depleted regular army. It could certainly be interpreted to mean a number of things. We assume that it doesn't permit citizens to possess nuclear weapons, but why not? Where's the ACLU on that one. I want my nukes! "Arms" could mean a pocket knife or anything. BTW, the constitution has been amended before. I believe they are called "amendments."

5. The "if-one-student-had-a-gun-this-wouldn't-have-happened-theory."

Study after study has shown that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of being involved in a gun-related accident, homicide, assault, and suicide. If one student or teacher in the class was packing, sure, maybe only 5 or 10 people would have died. But how many more incidents of gun violence would the presence of more guns create? We can't say for sure, but we know it would be more. And if this scenario had played out, would we be talking about the heroic, gun-toting student that saved the day? Hell no. We'd just be talking about a slightly-less-horrific massacre.