Rudy Giuliani, speaking to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, yesterday:

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

We had at least two attacks under Bush. (And several smaller quasi terrorist or terrorist related attacks, plus the anthrax attacks, as noted below.)  One, similar to the recent failed Christmas day attempt, by the airline “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid. The other, September 11, 2001 itself.

Putting aside the other attacks, why would Giuliani so think to discount the importance of being caught off guard regarding September 11, that he would make the statement “no domestic attacks under Bush” on the air?

September 11 did not come out of the blue, but came less a year after the bombing of the USS Cole killing 17 America Sailors; less than 10 months after the outgoing National Security Advisor personally met with incoming NSA head Condi Rice to tell her that the Bush Administration would be spending “more time specifically…on al-Qaeda, than any other subject;” less than eight months after Richard Clarke urgently requested a principals level meeting to discuss the al-Qaeda threat (which never met, despite subsequent requests); less than two months after a President’s Daily Brief warning of the severe and growing threat of Al-Qaeda; and less than eight months after Paul Bremer (later Bush’s Ambassador to Iraq) actually warned:

The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh, my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this?’

In fact, not only did September 11 no come “out of the blue,” it came on the heels of an absolutely startling record of issue avoidance and lack of relevant awareness.

To Giuliani, apparently the lack of attention paid to excessive warnings under the early days of the Bush Administration, along with subsequent terrorism attempts, don’t count.  Only attempts under Obama count.

Moreover, during the Bush Administration itself, when September 11 occurred, and the anthrax attacks occurred, and the shoe bomber attempt occurred, did Giuliani point out how “We had no domestic attacks under Clinton, we’ve had more than one under Bush“? Including a really bad one? One that Clinton tried to warn about. One that outgoing NSA head Sandy Berger tried emphatically to warn incoming NSA head Condoleeza Rice about in person.   One that National Counter-terrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke tried to warn about, multiple times, even writing to Rice on May 20, 2001?

When these attacks occur, as they likely will, we will wonder what more we could have done to stop them.

The Bush adminstration, instead of listening to Clarke, demoted him. Richard Cheney, who later of course blamed the attacks on Clarke, even famously stated one time on the air that Clarke was essentially “not in the loop.”  Was Cheney being disingenuous; or worse, given Clarke’s experience and skill set, was he not.

Of course Giuliani never made any of those points. Or the point about how under the Bush administration we had more than one domestic attack, including a devastating one; and none under Clinton.

But Giuliani can nevertheless go onto the news, where some of our major networks give him a microphone and podium to say almost anything with no critical context, balance, or questioning.  And he can assert therein how under Obama we have had a domestic attack whereas we had “none” under Bush.

Aside from overt partisanship, and seemingly forgetting about the anthrax attacks and failed airline bombing attempt that succeeded it, perhaps Giuliani is not including September 11 in his count either because he had a “pre September 11 mindset“?

In other words, September 11 might have taught many in our country about the reality of al-Qaeda and the threat that it posed. But it shouldn’t have had to teach those who ostensibly want to lead it, and those who continue to speak out assertively and critically as if they are experts on the subject matter.

Giuliani takes this one step further, however, by applying double standards to both the Clinton and the Obama administration relative to the Bush Administration, and by making up facts.

But what should be of equal, or greater concern, is Giuliani’s approach to fighting terrorism itself.

To CNN’s Larry King two days earlier, the former NYC Major asserted how what Obama did in “waiting” to issue a statement on the failed Christmas bombing attack “convinces our enemies that we are not ready.”

As noted here:

What expertise is this view of Giuliani’s based upon? The view that thinks that terrorists attack because they don’t want attention drawn to their attacks?

And by what logic?  That terrorists think that being “ready” to combat and eradicate them means issuing a simple statement of condemnation right away?

As also noted in the last link (emphasis added): “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 the exact perception that terrorists want to achieve — that they are having an effect upon the great United States?”

Giuliani also made some additional factual errors while speaking on King’s show. He asserted that Obama took ten days to respond to the failed Christmas day bombing attempt, and repeated it several times. Obama addressed the situation three days later (not ten.) He took responsibility (something Bush never really did), ten days later.

Giuliani also told King he thought that the failed “shoe bomber” airline bombing attempt was before September 11, not after. But this is hard to believe given that two days later to ABC’s Stephanopoulos, he seemed to think that the terrorism problem started with September 11, rather than before.

To Stephanopoulos, Giuliani also asserted that understanding that terrorists are “enemy combatants” is also very important and helpful to us.

He probably does not realize that “enemy combatants” is what terrorists want to be.  And being in a war is what they want to be. On the other hand, the most important thing we can do is work to further radicalize what it is that terrorists are, in the eyes of the world and potential disaffected Muslim youth recruits: Namely, pathological, murderous, criminals.

Not “enemy combatants.”  Not “warriors.”  Not part of a “larger battle.” Not, part of a “war.” But pathological, murderous, criminals.

The former framing, that Giuliani and some others are seemingly so excited about using, only serves to slightly de-radicalize extremist terrorists to otherwise relevant target groups outside (and, unfortunately, however rare, even perhaps inside) this country, broadening their scope, appeal, and sense of mission.  Referring to terrorists and the issue in this manner is probably one of the most counter-productive things we can do.

If we feel we need to deal differently with this brand of criminal, because of the depravity and potential enormity of the acts involved, that is an entirely separate question. But it does not make them “enemy combatants.” It does not make them people, or (in their minds) soldiers, fighting in a “war.” It does not make them warriors. It does not make them anything other than pathological, murderous criminals — bent upon acts of depraved violence against people that have nothing to do with them or their complaints (or, at least theoretically, against people used in lieu of complaints) — that they are.