Answer: As a convenient love nest. Question: Why was the crisis command center located in the WTC?

I'm continuing my anti-Rudy kick this evening. The first site I visit every day is Talking Points Memo, and over the months Josh Marshall and the other intrepid TPMers have been utterly wrecking Guliani, and painting a VERY scary picture... much worse than I would have thought. And TPM is among the least "shrill" of all left-of-center journalism sites. This particular under-reported scandal is one of the saddest tales of 9/11 mis-managment, but at least it provides an answer to the perplexing question: Why would anyone locate the NYC crisis command center inside the single highest profile terror target in NYC?

'He had his own elevator' By Steve Benen (excerpt)

So, why is it, exactly, that Giuliani picked the WTC site? The mayor personally established a specific standard: he had to be able to walk to the command center from his office. ("I've never seen in my life 'walking distance' as some kind of a standard for crisis management," said Lou Anemone, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the NYPD. "But you don't want to confuse Giuliani with the facts.")

...Giuliani's office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.

For the city, this meant that on 9/11, the NYC make-shift command center didn't exist until seven hours after the attack. As for Giuliani's poor judgment, the most rational conclusion is that he put his center in the wrong place because he was creating a "convenient love nest."...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016484.php

eom

eom

I put the post about Micheal Rubin being Guliani's chief foreign policy advisor in GD and it did not get a reply for a half hour and then one plaintive "Why hasn't anyone replied to this?" kick from somebody who knows who Micheal Rubin is or something.

It's not that people should fall all over themselves to comment on a story with only one side ("lunatic neo-cons suck"), but in the context of literally thousands of flame-fest replies about how the Dem front-runner will bomb Iran, one would think that the fact that the pug front-runner actually WILL IN FACT bomb Iran in the real world, not in the world of internet hyperbole, would arouse some passing interest.

And this guy is supposed to be "just the same" as mainstream Dems.

Beats me. My only hope is that a lot of the most over-the-top divisionists are either trolls or not old enough to vote.

Earlier I went through the old posts kicking a handful of substantive posts by other people that were not about either Hillary, Obama or Edwards, just to break up the "Let's Face It" fest. And a few of them drew real interest, so I'll keep doing it.

I do wonder, though, that threads viciously targeting our own candidates attract such major attention and threads targeting Republicans disappear instantly.

typed.

I have a theory... If you were 14-18 in 2000 then you are a voter whose political awakening years were all in the context of Bush as wicked monarch in a one party system. I think some younger folks can only see politics as protest and dissent because there were no real electoral contests, just scummy coronations. There less and less sense here of politics as a practical process for taking hold of the levers of power in the real world.

How else to account for the casual transference of hatred from Bush/Cheney to Clinton/Pelosi without dropping a stitch?

It's as if the only purpose of politics is to provide villains.

Many voters today had no clear memory of a Dem congress and didn't appreciate the power of the presidency.(For me, all those years of Reagan lording over comfortable Dem house majorities gave me much lower expectations.)

but I suspect you are correct. Especially because the anti Clinton/Pelosi rhetoric is so mindlessly puerile.

My formative years were vietnam and watergate and the rise of Reagan, so I have one set of expectations that is kind of similar to today's youth. I had a lot of rage over Nixon. (I was blown away that it could get SO MUCH WORSE.) My political sensibilites are informed by cold rage and deep mistrust.

Someone much younger than me whose formative years were during the Clinton admin probably has a more positive, and in ways more mature, view of politics than I do. They know of a place we need to get back to. Not Joni Mitchell's garden, but a real place where the president isn't a sociopath.

Some bloggers I read are of that generation and I'm blown away by their optimism. Then I remember that they matured during the brief window when a human being was in the white house.

Just the luck of the draw.

Though there is an age componant in that you have to get your heart broken by political heroes sometime, to learn not to put FAITH in politicians... that they are hired guns, picked to win. They will let you down eventually. They will lie, or be weak. They will make mistakes.

Some younger voters who had never seen a Dem majority in congress probably actually put their faith (rather than merely their hopes) in people like Harry Reid. D'oh! I'd be pissed too.

Maybe you should say Hillary had access to it...

SARCASM

with all that Mena cartel drug money.

There's so much of Rudy's history that the MSM ignores, especially how much money he made from exploiting 9-11....brazillians!

why did WTC tower 7 fall like a rock when it was not hit by an airplane?

what did the Mayor know and when did he know it?

If not for that, I might mention that historically WTC was home to several federal, state and municipal agencies and pre-9/11 it might not come especially to mind that it was an insecure location, but with the 1994 bombing, that excuse is out the window.

....A reporter advancing 9/11 conspiracy theories in a heated exchange with advisers to Rudy Giuliani was arrested following Tuesday night's Republican debate.

Police in Goffstown, N.H., confirmed to RAW STORY that freelance reporter Matt Lepacek was arrested for trespassing following the debate at St. Anselm College in Goffstown. Lepacek was asking a Giuliani adviser about comments the former mayor made on ABC News on Sept. 11 that some say show he had foreknowledge that the World Trade Center would collapse.

Police refused to release more information about Lepacek's case prior to his first scheduled court appearance July 3.

Lepacek was reporting for Infowars.com, which advances theories about the government knowing in advance about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Lepacek claimed to have press credentials issued by CNN, which sponsored Tuesday's debate. A CNN representative in charge of issuing credentials did not immediately return a phone call or e-mail from RAW STORY seeking comment.


Google: Giuliani+reporter+arrested

There are alot of other links