Mark Kleiman and I have been discussing the theory that the disaster recovery bunker in WTC 7 was placed so as to make the best love nest for Rudy Giuliani and his then-extramarital-girlfriend (now wife). Mark has just responded to a post I made on my old blog:
She makes two points:1. Traffic near City Hall was tied up on 9/11, vindicating the decision to place the command center should be within walking distance.
2. Giuliani and Nathan had other places to canoodle, including "her apartment and the City's many fine luxury hotels."
As to point #2, as long as Rudy and Judi were engaging in discreet adultery rather than flagrant adultery, having the Mayor visit her apartment, or taking a room in a luxury hotel, would have created certain ... security risks. Much better to have the city supply the love nest. As noted above, Barrett's flat assertion that the couple repeatedly visited the command center has gone uncontradicted, so far as I know. What do you think they were doing there: fire drills?
As to point #1, I don't pretend to be an expert on emergency management, but as far as I can tell no one but Giuliani supported the decision to place the command center at WTC7, or the "walking distance" criterion that justified that decision. That ought to raise red flags. This is not a case where "common sense" deserves serious consideration when it conflicts with expert opinion.
Yes, traffic near City Hall was tied up. But traffic near any disaster site was likely to be tied up. If the disaster wasn't near City Hall, the Mayor and his staff could have been easily transported to whatever command center had been chosen. (Apparently the favored location was actually in Brooklyn.) In a pinch, NYPD has helicopters.
On the point about their illicit liasons I am under the impression that, whatever the danger, they did in fact routinely visit hotels and her apartment, which is how the thing became common knowlege; certainly, showing up at the bunker together wasn't exactly a good way to keep it secret. I'm sure they did go to the bunker . . . and if I had such a place, I think I'd be tempted to at least neck on the desk near the secret button. But that doesn't mean it was therefore purpose-built for illicit assignations.
On the second point, it wasn't just traffic near the buildings that was snarled; that traffic may have been better than uptown. Remember, the island was sealed shut in the middle of rush hour. Police cars and ambulances can only clear a route to get somewhere if there is somewhere for the other cars to turn into. In Midtown and the financial district at rush hours, the streets are literally a solid block of cars. They would have to drive up onto the sidewalk to give a mayoral entourage a clear path--except that there are cars parked along the side of the street, so they can't do that.
In retrospect, of course, it was dumb. But hindsight bias distorts our perceptions. People who were against an idea remember having been against it much more strongly (and for better reasons) than they actually were at the time; people who were for it forget or play down their support; and people who didn't take part in the decision vastly overestimate the likelihood that they would have correctly predicted the actual outcome. Thus, it starts to make sense to look for conspiracies . . . a mole inside the organisation, or a venal politician who placed a bunker to use it as a love nest. It is not impossible that this was the case, but it doesn't strike me as particularly likely.
They could always bang at the necrophiliac love nest that Bernie Kerik kept for Judith Regan.
The boys could even share the 2x4 that Meggy would use for other purposes, namely, for beating Americans.
Uh, it is hardly hindsight when everyone but Rudy recommneded that they put the thing in Brooklyn at the time!
It isn't like this was some close call with a bunch of options and Rudy picked one out of many that wasn't necessarily the favorite but had some support. He frikkin picked a site out of left field that only he wanted when everyone told him Brooklyn was the correct choice.
Isn't point one also a reason His Less than Honorable would have wanted a walkable nookie nest? He couldn't very well use the NYPD helicopter to go get some.
On the other hand Judi seems to have been the one to convince him to ditch the comb-over, so the relationship's a mixed bag really.
um, ever heard of a helicoptor. I'm guessing NYPD and FDNY have a couple of those, and could have designated one or two for the mayor when a disaster struck, so the whole "traffic" thing is a kind of stupid.
I believe I am one of those commenters that Kleiman calls something other than reasonable and civil in my update. Below is my (Kleiman-labeled) unreasonable and uncivil comment.
"Why does Kleiman consistently speculate on right-leaning politicians through tabloid-type means?
This is not the first time. He talked about the Bush divorce rumors and I think there was one other item. How odd."
It's not fair to say avoiding the WTC is hindsight: the WTC was a known target; to my imperfect knowledge, it was in fact the only site in NY to have suffered a significant attack from international terrorism. This did not escape the experts who wanted the center sited elsewhere.
I don't know whether Rudy wanted a convenient love shack, but I think all the evidence is that he wanted a convenient and opulent addition to his kingdom, to massage his monstrous ego. Why did he need a luxury apartment with separate access, after all? I can see cots, kitchens, and showers as important considerations, but the suite is all Rudy.
In a pinch, NYPD has helicopters
Which are helpful if the next disaster is a hurricane.
Also, agree with Klug above. Kleiman's interest is solely in the sleaziest of the sleazy rumors. If there is a sleazy rumor about a Republican, you can be sure Kleiman is going to have a post on it. He's like a Larry Flynt without the magazine.
Klug,
When Kleinman accuses Bush or Giuliani of:
- having one of his best friends murdered and his body taken to a park so it could be staged as a suicide;
- having several other people murdered as well;
- fathering an Arkansas prostitute's baby;
- having attempted to rape just about every woman he ever came into contact with;
- supervising drug-running operations on a small-town air strip when he was governor;
- working as a Soviet agent when he was a college student;
- working as a Chinese agent when he was president;
- committing all sorts of alleged crimes in what was nothing more than a minor land deal that soured;
then you might have a little more purchase when you complain about these alleged "tabloid-type means."
Oh, Woody, please don't try to shame these authoritarians.
Good to know that "one good turn deserves another" is your operating principle, Woody. Doubtless, you think my comment was unreasonable and uncivil as well.
I think many of us assign to politicians actions that we would never do ourselves if in the same position, and therefore it is easy to assume that the locations of buildings are chosen in order to facilitate convenient sex, or that nations are invaded to get personally wealthy from oil (despite already being wealthy), or that when you were not paying attention because you are at work with a head between your knees, your wife's theoretical secret lover would be found hypothetically murdered at your hand by park police, or that 911 was a plot to build a dictatorship or monarchy. (The kind of ironclad dicatorship that can only be halted not by beheading or revolution, but by elections, which fully half of society will blow off because the work day was just totally draining).
(No really, the office printer broke down and it took ten minutes for James, the new guy from Sudan, to reload the ink cartridge, so voting was totally out of the question).
Actually being able to find a place to conveniently bopp your side squeeze is not inherently difficult and nary needs the budget of an entire city to facilitate the buffing of the floor with underling buttox. I would doubt Giuliani's penis's opinion on command center location was the lone measuring stick by which the site was chosen.
Lets say Rudy did just make a bad choice, no ulterior motives. Isn't that bad enough? Don't we want a president that makes good choices when he has to make a decision on these types of things?
Who were the other guys that recommended to him that they put the command center away from the big terrorist target? Wouldn't they make a better president.
As I remember, the center was actually placed in WT7 because Mayor Giuliani owed a political favor to a friend and, being a politician and therefore an opportunist, leaped at the chance to pay off the favor with someone else's money, i.e. the taxpayers.
The resultant chance to have a private office, with expensive leather furniture, big impressive desk and a great big phone with lots of impressive buttons to overawe a woman was just gravy.
Nobody could have anticipated that terrorists would attack a building that they had already attacked and that was considered by all the experts in NYPD to be a prime attack target. Instead Rudy did a heck of a job, getting the city at taxpayer expense, to build him a luxury apartment in a building owned by a contributor where he took his girlfriend during his adulterous affair.
If anyone wanted confirmation that "libertarians are republicans who smoke pot", this pathetic defense of an authoritarian incompetent would be exhibit #1.
Careful, Lurch, they'll accuse you of tabloid-style accusations as well. Suggesting political corruption is beyond the pale.
Which are helpful if the next disaster is a hurricane.
Right, you never know when a hurricane will drop in without warning and trap you in Manhattan. With three day hurricane watch/warning system, you might not have enough advance notice to hopscotch, or ride a unicycle, to Brooklyn.
Warren Terra sez: "the WTC was a known target; to my imperfect knowledge, it was in fact the only site in NY to have suffered a significant attack from international terrorism."
Imperfect knowledge. I agree.
The facts are out, and have been common knowledge by everybody who is not afraid to know the truth, or suffering from cognitive dissonance. Ever since the trial, and the revelations from Emad Salem's tape recordings. Not only was he taping conversations with the perps, he was also taping his conversations with the FBI. Recordings that clearly showed that the FBI had been offered a chance to substitute a harmless powder for the explosives but for some reason instead chose to have the perps use the real bomb at the WTC in 1993.
Of course, you can remember that there were actually very few deaths at the WTC in 1993 and the Globalist's Police Legislation didn't get enough support later in Congress. It wasn't till the four bombs at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City [two which failed to detonate] caused enough carnage to get their Constitution-shredding legislation passed.
International terrorists, indeed.
Al wrote, "Also, agree with Klug above. Kleiman's interest is solely in the sleaziest of the sleazy rumors. If there is a sleazy rumor about a Republican, you can be sure Kleiman is going to have a post on it. He's like a Larry Flynt without the magazine."
LOL!
I'll make the following wager: there's not a single right-wing blogger whose ethics are superior to Kleiman's.
rootless2 wrote, "If anyone wanted confirmation that 'libertarians are republicans who smoke pot', this pathetic defense of an authoritarian incompetent would be exhibit #1."
It's definitely an exhibit.
Exhibit #1, however, is made in the essay "Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?" at URL geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
It demonstrates that most so-called libertarians are in fact liberty hating thugs.
Jane without hindsight is, well, blind. Which explains a lot about her choices in makeup and clothing.
Everything voters need to know about Rudy is contained in his decision to restore the crisis command center to WTC.
I don't want to get into anything about "libertarians" or about Kleiman's post, since you, Megan, didn't write that. I do have a couple of points about your own thoughts. You are correct (as is the commenter above): the Command Bunker was set up in WTC as payback for a political and business friend. The love shack uses were ancillary benefits, shall we say, and besides both your point and the point at hand. As for the traffic thing, um? Come on. As a former New Yorker, you know a couple of things: that, yes, it's hard, but cars do make room for emergency vehicles (in fact, most major arterties don't have cars parked on both sides of the street during business hours) and, two, there are many other reliable means to get important personnel to various locations. More importantly, through your last paragraph and the link you provide, you're lumping in outside parties in with current observers. Yes, to an outside party, all outcomes are possible. But that's not the same as an expert (or in this case, or in the case of 9/11, SEVERAL experts) on the ground making a recommendation about what should be taken into account. Rudy was the ONLY one who wanted the bunker in the WTC, and went against the advice of people with foresight. We're not Monday morning quarterbacking amongst a number of different options. We're asking "Why didn't you listen to the people you hired to tell you these things?" Which is an important question to ask somone who wants to be president, don't you think?
On further reading, I realized that Mark is responding to your own post...to which I have to say: huh? You were suggesting that having the Mayor WALK to his Command Center during an emergency (which could be anything from a poison gas attack to, yes, a hurricane) is a BENEFIT? In what world does that make sense? How could that possibly be the wisest course of action? It's actually beyond dumb and verging directly into desperate justification.
As for the apartment canoodling part, I can certainly speak to that. The apartment building is a block north of me. Rudy and Judy would hang together at a local restaurant a block south of me, late in the evenings, drinking diet coke. I suppose it's ironic that the apartment building is walking distance from Gracie Mansion.
As for not following the advice offered by professionals who wanted to locate it in Brooklyn, because of traffic problems on the day of a disaster, aside from the obvious helicopter rejoinder, it would seem to me that having mayoral access to a command center for, oh say the next year or two might be more important than having access on the day of a disaster. In fact, if the mayor's personal involvement is necessary, then there has been terribly poor disaster planning.
In this, I think Giuiiani is given a bum rap to some degree. His job is to hire professionals, let them do their work, and be the lead PR resource. He did the PR part very well, deferring questions to the people who actually knew what was happening, and maintaining a stolid, no BS attitude. He did NOT sound like a politician in those critical two to three weeks.
Now, that doesn't mean that the wacky things he's claiming now make sense. But at the time, he really did a great deal to calm the city.
I remember this controversy very well. It wasn't just an inside the police force dispute -- there were a lot of media reports about it. Either the NY Times or the WSJ had a cartoon of Rudy sticking his head out of 7 WTC from the middle of the building and shaking his arms. I checked the WSJ's website today but couldn't find it. Those who don't like Rudy should track down that cartoon.
One point of fact needs to be made: The recommended site for the command center (which is the current site now) is within walking distance from City Hall. People walk over the Brooklyn Bridge every day as part of their normal commute, and the foot of the bridge is located quite conveniently at City Hall.
On the larger point, it doesn't really matter whether Giuliani intended to set this site up as a love shack (though at the time the decision was made, he was schtupping Christyne Latagano, his press aide, not Judi Nathan). When it came time to make the decision, Giuliani overrode the overwhelming opinion of his expert advisors and made a policy choice more informed by his ego than the safety and functioning of the city. Subsequent events made it obvious that the advisors were correct and Giuliani was disasterously wrong. And yet, those very same events turned Giulani into a very rich man and a presidential frontrunner.
Given that he has not suffered any negative consequence for his blunder, how likely is it that in future security decisions Giuliani will defer to advisors at the expense of his ego? Incentives matter, and the incentives Giuliani has received thus far would incline him toward putting himself above the needs of those he might take an oath to serve.
Klug,
Of course you miss the point - accidentally or intentionally, I dunno. But thanks for the morning laugh -- "One" good turn? Heh.
L'affair Rudy!
This is standard GOP family values stuff. Affairs in publicly financed love nests, dallied away while legitmate security concerns go unheeded.
It's not like Rudy was shouting it from the rooftops that he was sleeping with Judith. Everyone knows he gave the bullhorn to Dubya anyways. He put that to better use as a prop, much like the people around him.
Somehwere in that critical 29 hours Rudy spent near his former love nest, just before having Kerick and Chertoff instigate a coverup, he agreed to end the search for rescue workers and victims early.
Is it only my imagination, or are there a bunch more intolerant folks reading and posting here than there were at the old AI site?
@Woody, don't forget:
- Publish those allegations repeatedly on the editorial page of one of the nation's most popular newspapers (Wall Street Journal)
- Compile those editorials into a book and shill it ad nauseum on that same editorial page
Can someone explain to me why was there a need for a separate command center, outside of Rudy's office in City Hall? What was the advantage to having another office in the building next door?
Yeah, the creepy similarity of what Kerik and Regan were doing is notable.
Also, let's suppose Megan is right. It wasn't PRIMARILY intended as a love shack. So what? The thing's an emergency command center. It's an important site that needs to be available for emergencies. It shouldn't be used as a place for the Mayor to have sex under any circumstances, whether with Judith Nathan or Christyne Letagano or Donna Hanover or one of his gay roommates or anyone else.
All Megan's post has done is established that AT BEST, Giuliani misused city property to carry on his affair.
I love to read O'relly/Fox news peoploe complain about the liberal press attacks on conservatives.
And the need for monogrammed towels there was...in case he handed one to someone to mop up blood and they wanted to remember who to give it back to?
And the cigar humidor, no doubt, must have been in case a pregnant lady gave birth while trapped in the bunker and the father wanted to celebrate.
Rudy thinks of everything!
It would also be ludicrously improbable to suppose that Bernard Kerik would have a top-security love nest rented and furnished at taxpayer expense, when he had access to so many perfectly good luxury hotels. Ludicrously improbable, except, of course, that it happens to be true.
Numerous qualified security experts say they warned Giuliani not to put the EOC in the WTC. Not a single security expert has appeared to say there was any merit to the idea. But Megan McArdle thinks all of these security experts were wrong, because, in an emergency, cars would have had to drive on the sidewalks. Case closed! McArdle, as an Ivy League grad who majored in Econ, is clearly more qualified to make such pronouncements than, say, the NYPD's director of emergency response.
In any case: the allegation is not that Giuliani plotted to install the EOC at the WTC because he planned in advance to use it for illicit dirty weekends. The allegation is that, having had the EOC installed within walking distance because he liked the idea of being able to hang out there and play Fantasy Crisis Leader, Giuliani had the poor judgment and the adolescent sense of entitlement to use this public facility as his private love shack. The sneering air of juvenile entitlement and sexual privilege with which Giuliani treated the office of Mayor during his tenure are well enough established; the EOC love-shack story is entirely in character. It will dog him throughout this campaign, and it ought to.
Gee, Meg, your commenters have pretty much decimated your post, wouldn't you say? Isn't it time to say that, in hindsight at least, your arguments are pretty dumb?
Milton,
O'Reilly doesn't complain about the liberal press lambasting conservatives. What he complains about is that the liberal press lambastes primarily ONLY conservatives and gives liberals a free pass. I think he'd be truly happy if both conservatives and liberals were lambasted when they needed to be.
"People who were against an idea remember having been against it much more strongly (and for better reasons) than they actually were at the time; people who were for it forget or play down their support; and people who didn't take part in the decision vastly overestimate the likelihood that they would have correctly predicted the actual outcome."
wow that is just sooo weak.
Exclude your critics and you are always right, resume's are overrated, and so is the general concept of history.
Do you think that Chamberlain and Lindberg got a raw deal by being ostracized for their pre WWII positions?
In hindsight, it looks like the explanation for several of Matt's post the past few days is that he trying to hook up with you. Maybe to get some hindsight and a glimpse of the red button.
About using helicopters: How many other people besides the Mayor would have to also go from City Hall to the command center? From what I've heard about Guiiiani, I can't see him willingly walking the distance - if a hurricane grounded the helicopters and cars couldn't get through, I suspect he'd have his aides improvise a sedan chair and carry him. (Does that tell you how much I'm NOT a Guiliani supporter?) But I doubt his whole staff would fit in a police helicopter, so they'd have to trot on over there.
Someone says the proposed Brooklyn site was also within walking distance. If so, wouldn't it be as good a place for a tryst? I can see other reasons for rejecting it. Would the bridge be passable in a hurricane? Would the bridge also be a likely terrorist target? And mainly, would a Manhattanite even be willing to consider running the city from Brooklyn?
As for a location at a known terrorist target, I could see a "lightning doesn't strike twice" argument - that is, the terrorists already tried to blow it up with a whole truckload of explosives, and it stood up to that, so with dozens of other prominent targets, you might reasonably expect them to pick a less well-built one the next time. This turned out to be in error, but everyone underestimated Al Quaeda's creativity. And of course, there are plenty of other disasters besides terrorism to consider.
I don't think Guiliani picked the site with his little head. It's quite likely that he did have ulterior motives, but I think they were political rather than sexual - you can get the taxpayers to pay a lot more rent for a Manhattan address, so it's a bigger favor to someone...
kerasin nonvoter menorrhagia splatterfaced bewet endoskeleton prerespiration abnegation
http://www.coda-tours.com/ >Coda International Tours, Inc.
http://www.martinmicroscope.com/
Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!