Sorry for all the Giuliani-related posts today, but the former mayor is popping off quite a bit and making overwhelmingly clear just how ignorant he is. The poor guy is just out of his league running for president right now, and the more he opens his mouth, the more it become clear that Giuliani should go away for a while, read a book or two, and come back when he has a clue.
The latest embarrassment is Giuliani’s poor memory when it comes to understanding the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.
Last night on Fox News, former mayor Rudy Giuliani repeated the myth that President Clinton failed to respond adequately to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, claiming that Clinton’s response to terrorist attack was during his administration was “let things go.”
During an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity to promote his new “12 Commitments” to America, Giuliani said that Americans are being lured by the “very appealing” idea that the U.S. should “kind of act the way Clinton did in the ’90s.” Giuliani described this mentality as “don’t react, let things go,” and charged, “You know, we get attacked on the Cole. We don’t do anything about it.”
There comes a point at which a candidate screws up basic facts so often, and so badly, they should necessarily be disqualified in the voters’ minds from holding national office. Giuliani has reached such a point. He thinks the next president won’t influence the future of Iraq, he’s confused about the Fort Dix plot, he doesn’t know the difference between Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs, and he has no idea whether Iran and al Qaeda are Sunni or Shia. Asked recently for his thoughts on the efficacy of the president’s escalation strategy in Iraq, Giuliani said, “I don’t know the answer to that.”
As National Review’s Rich Lowry recently noted, when Giuliani responds to voters’ questions, “his answers on foreign policy and military affairs aren’t deeply informed.”
And now Giuliani doesn’t know what happened with the USS Cole? Does he know anything about his signature campaign issue?
In case there’s any lingering confusion….
In fact, President Clinton was eager — at the recommendation of his counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke — to retaliate against al Qaeda for the U.S.S. Cole. But that attack took place in October 2000. As Clinton explained in a 2006 interview, both the CIA and FBI “refused to certify that it was Bin Laden was responsible” for the attack on the Cole until early 2001 which foreclosed on the possibility of a full response during the Clinton administration.
In fact, I’d go a step further. As Bush was taking office, and Clinton learned that it was al Qaeda who executed the attack, Clinton urged his successor to pursue the issue. Bush didn’t.
To borrow Giuliani’s phrase, Bush “let things go.”
Indeed, the former mayor may not realize it — alas, he doesn’t realize a lot of things — but by condemning the U.S. response to the Cole bombing, Giuliani was actually condemning Bush, not Clinton.
Don’t go away mad, Rudy; just go away.