Giuliani & Pat Robertson

Unless you live under a rock, you are aware of the fact that one of the craziest people alive, Pat Robertson, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president. Such an endorsement should preclude anyone from that or any other position of power... even county dog catcher. This is especially true in Rudy's case, however, for he has staken his claim -- falsely -- on 9/11 and his "expert leadership and knowledge" is such that another such day will be averted only by him.

Robertson, you may remember, is on record as proclaiming that the events of 9/11 were America's fault for its "Godlessness." Our sinful gay-loving, abortion-permitting culture, if you will, was at the root of his belief that we got what we deserved. His views haven't changed and indeed remain today on his web site. Now, one would think that the then-mayor of the city most heavily involved in the events of 9/11 would object to such a mindset, no? Instead, when brought to his attention by the press, Rudy just laughed them off and indicated that Robertson had been misinterpreted. Remember, these views are still posted on Robertson's own web site. I'd say that Rudy doesn't think that we are can read. Of course, since the press isn't doing its job, maybe he wouldn't be far from the truth! (The press is always soft on Rudy, btw.) What is more is that there is history in Rudy's past that would indicate that he'd decline the endorsement.

Soon after 9/11 Rudy very publicly turned down $10M from a Saudi Prince, Alwaleed bin Talal, after the prince offered the aid money to the people of New York with the words that America "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." Greg Sargent at TPM notes that [i]n response, Rudy rejected the money because of the prince's suggestion that the U.S. was in any way remotely responsible for the disaster, saying:

"I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people."

Again, Sargent: The rejection of the Saudi prince's $10 million is a big point of pride for Rudy, something he currently brings up as proof of his anti-terrorism zeal.

Why then, would Rudy repudiate this foreign prince for admonishing the US for some of its policies when he embraces a man who outright blamed the attacks on us? Well, its classic Rudy. It was easy for him to play tough when the $10M was for other people, even the people he was entrusted to serve. Robertson's endorsement, on the other hand, directly benefits him politically. Rudy is nothing if not "me first, me only." As Sagrent put it...

There are two morals to this tale. The first: Rudy will turn away $10 million in relief for other people from someone who sort of blamed America for 9/11 if it gives him a chance to do a bit of garden variety political grandstanding and get big tabloid headlines. But he'll overlook such comments if it will allow him to help himself politically, as the Robertson endorsement does.

The second moral: If an Arab sort of blames America for 9/11, it's despicable. If a Christian fundamentalist/extremist does it, it's not a problem at all.

What is even more surprising is that Rudy has recently blasted one of his rivals for the Republican nomination for president, Ron Paul, for saying something similar to what that Saudi prince said. (See Rudy's words here.) Paul has said that we need to look at our policies and how they affect the world around us. While in no way excusing the events of 9/11 -- who could?!? -- he is saying that we as a nation must realize that we don't live in a bubble and that our actions do have consequences, consequences that include hardening the beliefs of nutball zealots. Again, this boils down to political expediency for Rudy. Castigate Paul, bear hug Robertson. Once again, for Rudy it is only "me first, me only."

8 November 2007