Rudy Giuiliani, in a Separate Reality, and Not an Expert on Terrorism

January 8, 2010.  Rudy Giuliani:

We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama.

We had an attempted attack under Bush, similar to the recent failed Christmas day attempt, by Richard Reid, the infamous "shoe bomber." And we had an attack on September 11, 2001 itself, not long after a President's Daily Brief ominously warned of Bin Laden's intent. That's two, not none.

Prior to September 11, the Bush administration also paid far less attention to the issue than the Clinton administration had, despite repeated warnings of a heightened risk.

But these aren't even the only mistakes Guliani has made on this same issue. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, and roundly criticizing President Obama, Giuliani asserted that not responding with a public statement very quickly, "convinces our enemies that we are not ready."

Ready for what? Ready to condemn terrorism yet again based upon terrorists' calendar, and not our own strategic aims?  Terrorists don't care about our readiness to talk about an attack afterwards. They are concerned with being eradicated.  With being thwarted in their attempts to begin with; with being painted even more unfavorably to the world (such as lowly pathological murderous criminals, rather than as those "engaging in a war," or "enemy combatants"); and with us not making a big deal out of it, just working steadfastly to eradicate them -- which is the last thing they want.

Furthermore, what expertise is this view of Guiliani's based upon? The view that thinks that terrorists attack because they don't want attention drawn to their attacks?

And what kind of thinking is this by Giuliani?  That by making a bigger deal of attacks, in a way that otherwise serves no strategic advantage, this somehow dissuades rather than bolsters exactly what terrorists want to perceive -- that they are having an effect upon the great United States?

Giuliani also erroneously stated in that same interview that Obama took ten days to respond. He also repeated this point over and over (watch it again). This is flagrantly incorrect. Obama took three. Bush took six to respond to the "shoe bomber."  When Larry King pointed this out, the former New York Major and aspiring expert countered with "six is less than ten."

Giuliani also seems to make a big deal out of the fact that the shoe bomber attempt was before September 11, 2001. He makes this assertion (also otherwise incorrect, but that is yet another mistake by Giuliani), as if before September 11 we didn't know anything. Perhaps Giuliani didn't.  But most experts and those who should wish to lead us on these issues now, certainly did (including the outgoing Clinton Administration), and repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about it.

Giuliani's strategy is wrong. He clearly knew almost nothing about the issue back before September 11.  And Guliani clearly knows very little about the issue now. He can't even get the basic facts correct, in order to make his otherwise still highly misguided points.  And he keeps getting invited back onto shows as if he is some kind of expert on the topic.
______________

Scary Parallel Logic

No, it didn't.  Did it?

A popular blog perhaps tried to insinuate that lack of health insurance is worse than terrorism.

We could analyze all of the problems in this comparison for pages.  But, simply put, this is like arguing that murder is no big deal because "people die in hospitals every day." Actually, it's not just "like" arguing that, it kind of is that.

The number one point of course being that medical care may not be needed; we control our own health to a large extent; even with health insurance one can still get bad medical care, or even good medical care may fail; while not nearly as effective we do have emergency rooms (not an endorsement for a health care plan being "emergency rooms" which are overused, often don't prevent what will lead to death where good care might have, and are incredibly inefficient and a last resort, but we do have them); there is no element of a purposeful engagement in the most heinous hijacking of liberty known to man -- the purposeful killing; and one can of course provided circumstances are not too unfavorable, work to get health insurance or save enough to cover at least some medical care.

This is not to say that medical care in this country is not a debacle. It is.  But that is not the point of this post. It is to say that false comparisons, like "the number of people that die from skiing accidents, and the number of people that die from being robbed nyc city streets is the same, so what's the big deal about being robbed!" are really missing the boat.

Still, in fairness to that blog, it is worth pointing out that lack of insurance, at least under our current system, does lead to deaths in some cases, that otherwise could have been prevented.  That's just a reality, and it's not a good one.  But while we think health care, and in particular health care insurance, is ripe for reform in a country where health care costs (both to government and citizens) are spiraling ridiculously out of control while many people's health care is in fact compromised, we don't think any bill is better than no bill.  In fact, we think it is a lot worse.

How to Worsen the Battle Against Terrorism

Q: What is you wanted to make the war on terror worse, and you were famous, what would you say?

A:  Something that would make this effort to combat terrorism more -- to Muslims, at least -- like it was a battle against Muslims.

Why would this be one of the most foolish things we could do? Because it is imperative that the Muslim world understand that this is not against Muslims, that it is not impugning Islam (the world's second most popular religion) but is against radical extremist, terrorism, which is far different from the vast majority of Islam.

This is probably the single most critical thing to accomplish to help mitigate and  lessen this problem long term, rather than infalme and broaden it.  In a word, the most important thing we can do, is further marginalize extremist elements, and have Muslims understand that this is not a battle against them. The worst thing we can do is anything helps to convey the opposite.

So what did talk show host Mike Gallagher do? The opposite, of course:

We should anybody who is a known Muslim and put them in a separate line. Call it the VIP line! Treat them with respect!

Did Gallagher take lessons in how to inflame  and provoke and make insanity directed against innocents and the "west" just ever so slightly less insane (still insane, just effecting their view a slight bit in the opposite way that we need to) to a lot of otherwise reasonable people who feel they are being targeted now?
 
Or is he just a natural. 
 
As practical as this idea might sound to some, if you are a Christian, traveling in either your own country, or abroad, and it turns out that some really radical, fringe, lunatic element of the "Christian Faith" which has nothing to do with you, were to be crazy terrorists, how would you feel then to be singled out in your own special "respect line" which is a double check, for terrorism. (Obviously, not something normally associated with "respect.").You'd feel like you were being singled out (and you would be) and that it was your religion that was being impugned. 
 
That is not good, and undermines what we need to accomplish.
 
It is, thus, is a terrible idea.  
 
Most experts in this field, happen to agree. Gallagher, on the other hand, a "guest" on Fox, is no expert.