I was a skeptic when I saw the headline in this Wall Street Journal story on Giuliani’s private consulting firm, and I think they’re reaching for the “this might hurt Giuliani’s image on the issue of terrorism.”

“Some of those clients have controversial records. Among those he hasn’t disclosed is the government of Qatar, a Persian Gulf state to whom the firm provided security advice, according to the former U.S. ambassador there. Qatar is a strategic U.S. military ally and energy supplier, yet also a country that has been criticized for its conduct toward al Qaeda — a potential political pitfall for a candidate pitching himself as an uncompromising foe of Islamic terrorism.”

So he shouldn’t offered advice to a state-owned energy company about security for a natural-gas processing facility? The “tough on terror” stance is to have no interaction with the Qatari government?

#more#

The case against Qatar, as made by the Journal:

While Qatar is a U.S. ally, it has drawn scrutiny for its involvement in the U.S. effort to combat terrorism. In 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investigation went to Qatar to arrest al-Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, then under indictment in New York for a plot to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners. But Mr. Mohammad slipped away, apparently tipped off by an al-Qaeda sympathizer in the Qatari government.Qatari officials have denied they tipped off Mr. Mohammad, and a State Department report says the country has offered “significant” counterterrorism support to the U.S. since the 2001 attacks.

The Qatari government, like most, probably viewed al-Qaeda differently in 1996, and I’ll hold back on commenting how tough and diligent the U.S. government was in pursuing al-Qaeda in the 1990s. Unfortunately, you have a tough time finding any Arab government that is completely devoid of any al-Qaeda sympathizers.

Again, I’m left unpersuaded by the idea that based on this, it’s somehow unethical or wrong for an American to do business with the Qatari government.

On the other issue raised by the Journal – the lack of disclosure – they have a stronger case. Maybe a potential future president shouldn’t be working for a foreign government before he’s elected (In Germany, you get hired by Russia after serving as Chancellor). I think it’s fair that voters ought to know, at least broadly, the work he’s done and the compensation for any foreign government.

(Although I wouldn’t be surprised if Giuliani himself did little or no work himself on the security consulting for the gas plant. He’s the name on the door and the face of the organization, but I have a hard time picturing him measuring out barbed-wire fence lengths in the middle of the Qatari desert.)

UPDATE: Campaign Spot reader Ed notes that “the Qatari government, by the way, hosts the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command, so it isn’t like the election’s winner isn’t going to have a lot to do with them.”