- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
“What useful work could he (or any other politician) have done to make a difference down in that smoking hole in the months following the collapse? A highly visible public figure who needs security protection, like Il Duce, or Hillary, or any politician, is only going to halt or limit the recovery effort while they prance around in front of cameras. They really have no business down there other than a photo op. Neither one of them could lift as much as a 25 lb. chunk of concrete. What do you expect them to do there?”
-Garry Owen@ Saturday, August 18, 2007 07:43 AM
Garry, I agree and didn’t miss your point in your first post on the subject.
For the sake of argument, let’s just accept Rudy’s fraudulent assessment of his time clocked at GZ at face value. What does that say for his ability to manage and make priority judgments about what was truly needed? What possible actual value added could his on-camera presence at GZ have represented? Perhaps something could be said in defense of his visibility for morale and solidarity purposes. But given his questionable prior relationship with the rescue workers; I doubt that many of them were inspired by his posturing, while they were working around his security detail nuisance impediment and trying to rescue survivors. This had to be a problem for these workers, regardless of how much time he spent there, as they breathed the toxic air that both the federal government and Giuliani KNEW was a problem.
“Ground Zero Toxic Death Fumes Covered Up From Day One”:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/September2006/080906toxic.htm
If nothing else, it should be obvious that Rudy is trying to have it both ways. There’s no doubt he KNEW about the toxic air problem, so it was in his personal interest to actually spend as little time there, photo-ops aside, as possible. But as the duplicitous fascist weasel that he has shown himself to be, he can’t resist any opportunity to cast himself in what he thinks is a favorable and exculpatory light. He is confident that no real scrutiny will ever be applied regarding what he SHOULD have been doing while claiming that he:
“was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. ... I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them."
We don’t need to be clocking any time validating or discrediting Rudy’s “hardhat time card”. Rather, these are JUST SOME of the questions he should now be asked:
1. Why did you spend as much time as you claimed at GZ knowing what you knew about the toxic ambient conditions?
2. Other than photo opportunities, what was the value of your presence to the task at hand?
3. Why did you, under pressure from wealthy building owners, allow the reopening of Lower Manhattan so quickly despite clear warnings about residual toxicity there?
4. Why did you permit rescue workers at GZ to be without protective suits, boots or full face masks when all the evidence indicated they should have had this protection?
5. Could your time have been better spent mobilizing the municipal agencies under your direction to assure the safety of workers and the general population against these known hazards?
6. Why did you ignore the warnings about the safety of workers and the general population?
7. Why do you presume that falsely presenting yourself as evidence there was “no toxic danger” will not be recognized for the cynical canard that it is?
8. Why do you presume to be a candidate for higher office and greater responsibility in light of your egregious past failures and continuing dishonest representations?
It’s time to get past sound bite analyses of the bullshit uttered by people like Benito Giuliani and concentrate on the real worms that always lurk underneath.
