<p>GUILIANI: …Generally, a police radio and a fire radio should operate differently because 90 percent of the time, 95 percent of the time they’re doing different things. Police officers are chasing criminals; firefighters are dealing in mass emergencies. But they should have radios that are interoperable so that in an emergency both of them can be switched onto the same channel. </p>
<p>BEN-VENISTE: But in the interim…</p>
<p>GIULIANI: Those radios do not exist today.</p>
<p>Vyse, I know you don’t know me, but just so you’re aware for the future, I don’t simply “say things” like this. I always make darn sure I can back up what I say.</p>
<p>It’s simply not relevent, “shopping.” The issue was whether Guiliani’s poor decision making cost the lives of some firefighters and if he lied to cover it up. Some random, self-serving statement Guiliani made criticizing Democracts hardly exculpates him. </p>
<p>Except, I guess to the anti-accountability crowd.</p>
<p>Do you really think the benefit to the Republican party of Rudy’s slam on the Democrats outweighs the deaths of over 100 firefighters who never got the word to evacuate because of Guiliani’s incompetence on the radio issue?</p>
<p>The radio issue shows us in a nutshell what Guiliani’s approach to terrorism will be: to ignore well-advised recommendations in favor of doing whatever he wants, then, when it doesn’t work out well, to lie about it. </p>
<p>While this may be very familiar and comforting to the 28% of the population who still approve of the Bush administration, most Americans have had enough of this approach.</p>
<p>Then how come no one’s bothering to tell it? </p>
<p>You’ll notice in that article you linked, that the “Firefighters for Rudy” don’t even address the concerns about his handling of the radio issue or his decision to scoop and dump the firefighters’ remains. </p>
<p>It’s just an empty, blanket statement of support.</p>
<p>Which I guess isn’t too surprising, given that “Firefighters for Rudy” operates out of Guiliani’s campaign headquarters.</p>
<p>How do those two sources refute the well-documented facts that Rudy did not provide interoperable radios and then lied to cover it up? </p>
<p>This is what I asked Vyse to defend, and not one thing you have linked says otherwise.</p>
<p>You can call me “con” all you want and pretend it didn’t happen, but it’s all in the 9-11 commission reports, and the numerous other sources I have linked to. </p>
<p>IMO, the derogatory nicknaming says less about me than it does about the person doing it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you have evidence to show:</p>
<ol>
<li>that the NYFD and NYPD did have interoperable radios on 9-11–despite Rudy’s own admission that they didn’t</li>
</ol>
<p>or </p>
<ol>
<li>that Rudy was telling the truth when he said the radios didn’t exist–despite all the other mayors who said they had them already</li>
</ol>
<p>Let’s hear it, instead of personal attacks on me.</p>
<p>A 60 page document where you dont pinpoint the specific suggestion you’re referencing, and a handful of partisan websites saying he said she said is woefully inadequate.</p>
<p>I couldn’t even find mention of this on the heavy trafficked leftist sites I frequent.</p>
<p>If you really think a woman who doesn’t know her own position on the war leading this country in a partisan alliance with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer is a brighter future for American foreign policy, you have pretty low standards.</p>
<p>Vyse, what specifically are you saying you can’t find in the 9-11 commission report, the WTC report, or the mayor’s study?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>That interoperable radios were recommended after the WTC bombing?</p></li>
<li><p>That the NYFD did not have such radios on 9-11?</p></li>
<li><p>That failure to have such radios likely cost firefighters their lives?</p></li>
<li><p>That Guiliani said that interoperable radios didn’t exist?</p></li>
<li><p>That other cities had the allegedly non-existent radios in fall of 2001?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I will dig out the specific quotes for you, if you really can’t read the documents yourselves, but let me know which of the things you’re saying isn’t true, so I don’t waste my time on all of them.</p>
<p>ETA: I really thought when you offered to defend the Republican candidates, that you had something more to offer then pretending that anything negative about them simply doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>Your original argument was that Rudy had been explicitly told to do this in 1993, and failed adopt these radios while everyone else did.</p>
<p>I fail to see how a 9/11/2001 panel saying in hindsight they would have been useful proves that Giuliani had a preponderance of evidence PRIOR to 9/11, yet ignored it while his peers did not.</p>
<p>192 mayors were surveyed in October 2001. Results on page 4. “More than 77% of the cities in the survey are interoperable across police and fire departments.” 66% are also interoperable with EMS.</p>
<p>Once again, your original assertion was that the recommendation was made and ignored in 1993, not 2001, and that all the other mayors procured the new equipment while Giuliani didn’t.</p>
<p>This report, from the US Fire Administration, a department of FEMA, made after the 1993 WTC attack, documents in numerous places recommendations to upgrade the Fire Department’s equipment. Yet, seven years later, it still hadn’t been done.</p>
<p>I simply cannot believe that your defense is to pretend that Guiliani didn’t know that interoperable radios would help till after the towers fell. Not even Guiliani is claiming this.</p>
<p>Go back and read his testimony before the 9-11 commission I linked earlier. He clearly knew, and he even talks about a botched effort by his administation to provide the radios. The transcript is only a page long, you should be able to find it.</p>
<p>This source also documents that the need for interoperable communications was well known before 2001, and even cites the 1993 report linked above. See the first two sentences and footnote #2.</p>
<p>(The author’s point in this article “Stop Blaming the Radios” is that radios are needed but not sufficient: true interoperability requires a number of significant management and behavioral changes, including regular interagency drills).</p>
<p>VYSE: After all this, can you still seriously argue that Guiliani was simply unaware before 9-11 that the NYFD needed stronger radios and interoperability with the NYPD and other first responsders?</p>
<p>These problems are not new to the World Trade Center incident. they cross-department and cross-discipline communication has been a hotly contested and long-identified issue. For example, At the Oklahoma City federal building bombing incident, the inability to communicate between departments was also cited as a problem. Firefighters heard an evacuation order on their radio channel because of the reported presence of a second bomb. Police and EMS workers reportedly did not know of the order.[38] In Hurricane Katrina’s wake, a sergeant in the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries appeared on national television to describe not being able to reach persons from other agencies who were assisting with the recovery. She described seeing the people in a nearby boat but not being able to communicate with them.[39] Even if the technical problems are solved, the issue is more complicated than just adding radio channels or talk groups. It’s also a cultural problem. In one local incident, a large number of officers from three police agencies were fielded to search for a violent criminal who had evaded officers from one of the agencies. The officers did not coordinate by switching to a shared radio channel. After the incident, one participant said the users thought their radios were incompatible and did not understand how the shared channel worked.[40] In another instance, a fire agency had thoroughly trained for interoperability scenarios. During an incident where two agencies with different radio channels responded, a decision-maker said personnel from his agency would stay on their own channel.[41] It is not solely a technical problem: it’s an operational problem. Changes to ICS command structure, or operational changes in how the command post for an incident is set up, may produce better results than buying equipment or adding channels.[42] Sometimes there are interoperability problems even where a structure for interoperability exists.</p>
<p>38:^ See: “2.1 Introduction,” California EMS Communications Plan: Final Draft, (Sacramento, California: State of California EMS Authority, September 2000,) pp. 7.
39 See: Now, Jump Start Productions LLC, 09/16/2005. The sergeant’s main problem was the catastrophic failure of communications networks in the wake of the storm. The view that the catastrophic system failure was the most significant problem was echoed by Lieutenant Governor Landreau on the program.
40: This possibly reflects a training problem or a technology literacy problem. The problem seems to have been remedied since then.
41: Decision-makers may occasionally act in unpredictable ways, even if technology literate and well-trained. It’s the Runsfeldian concept that democracy is sometimes messy.
42: A high-ranking manager once told me he, “…didn’t know why we would need to talk to other agencies.” (Fortunately, the manager’s subordinates did know why.) The person didn’t have much of a sense of humor, so it appeared they were not joking. </p>
<p>As much as you and mediamatters.com want this to be a black and white issue, its not.</p>
<p>That’s your “defense”? That Guiliani wasn’t the only one not to have interoperable communications? The other guy did it too? Do you really think “the other guy did it too” is going to bring back 100+ dead firefighters? </p>
<p>This is a Parent’s Forum–I think we’ve all heard that excuse before and know how little it’s worth.</p>
<p>Nothing any other mayor did or didn’t do absolves Guiliani for his failure to implement the specific recommendations that the US Fire Adminstration made for NYC after the 1993 bombing. </p>
<p>Guiliani is culpable because he failed to act on a specific recommendation that was made for his city–and people died who would have lived had he not dropped the ball.</p>
<p>And it’s particularly salient for him, because he’s asking to be put in charge of disaster/terrorism response for the whole country.</p>
<p>He had a chance, and he blew it, then lied to cover it up.</p>
<p>Is this really what you want in a President? I think we deserve better.</p>
<p>Hindsight is 20/20. You made it sound like this was a black and white common sense issue, with little appreciation for how technically complicated it really is.</p>
<p>Giuliani did things to rebuild that city that few could of, and he made a couple of mistakes along the way that many did.</p>
<p>Instead of trying to wedge me into discussing a single issue, why dont we discuss Giuliani’s holistic merits vs Hillary/Obama’s holistic merits like I originally proposed?</p>
<p>This isn’t hindsight! The recommendation was made in 1993…how is that hindsight in 2001? Guiliani had the benefit of foresight, and still failed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is. The US Fire Administration said, basically, “this will help, you should do it.” Common sense says, you do it, even if it takes a while to work out the technical challenges.</p>
<p>Seven years later, nothing significant had been accomplished, and Guiliani lied and said what the US Fire Administration recommended was impossible, although other cities had done it successfully.</p>
<p>It’s only complicated when you try to craft elaborate excuses for why he failed.</p>
<p>Bottom line: When it comes to our security, the American people deserve effectiveness, not excuses and lies.</p>
<h2>Interoperability. How about that word. Talk about abused. Every joker on the block has something to help us (sell us) with that. Tons of cash spent on new radio systems so fire can talk to the cops and the cops can talk to us and we can all talk to whomever. A big deal? Sure - just as soon as firefighters and fire officers can talk to each other inside and outside of a building fire, on the same block, I’ll make sure the next call I take after that comes from the police advising me of a road hazard 45 miles away. So 9/11 did get us radios that allegedly allow “all” the agencies to talk to each other (as long as you can find channel C-7, talkgroup B, sub-group H) but I think we still have a long ways to go on getting affordable, easy to use/understand fire radios.</h2>
<p>Yes, it was a mistake, but you’re drastically exaggerating it in order to discredit Giuliani. Giuliani didnt have multiple chances to kill the man that masterminded the whole operation like Clinton did.</p>
<p>I think your focus on an issue like this perfectly illustrates the point Giuliani made the other day, that the democrats are more interested in going on the defensive against terrorism instead of looking at the bigger picture.</p>
<p>You’ve ducked the other topics, including family values and the Bernie Kerik affair.</p>
<p>BTW, don’t give us that “mainstream media” nonsense. Several of us have formed our opinions about the candidates likelihood of receiving the endorsement of the largest firefighters’ union by watching the speeches they gave to the firefighters’ convention (that is, the candidates who bothered to show up). You can watch the speeched here:</p>