In the earlier part of Rudy Giuliani’s interview with Tim Russert, I thought he was fine on Iran, okay on Kerik and the Nathan security detail, and a bit of a slip-up on the Qatar security contract.
On Iran, he offered what is pretty much the consensus position of Republican candidates -if the latest NIE is accurate, and skepticism may be warranted, it’s good news, but we should recognize what happened in 2003 — the U.S. had beaten the Taliban, deposed Saddam, and Khaddafi voluntarily gave up his weapons programs. Giuliani emphasized that he didn’t want war with Iran, and that Norman Podhoretz had misinterpreted his view if he walked away from their conversation with that impression, but that all options had to remain on the table.
On Kerik, he said he took responsibility, and offered his standard defense, “look at the whole picture of who I appointed, most turned out pretty well and did a good job.”
On Nathan, I don’t know how much good he did himself, but he kept emphasizing that the decisions about her security were handled by the NYPD. The problem with this scandal story from the beginning is that while things not being on the up-and-up involving circumstances with a big city politician and his woman on the side is extremely plausible, I don’t have an easy time seeing Rudy Giuliani being the guy shuffling around funding for the security detail. Do we see Giuliani looking over some accountant’s shoulder and saying, “Don’t put it in this column, put it under that column!”? When Giuliani says he had no idea what was going on regarding the funding, I find it plausible. I think for most folks, they don’t look at that picture and see a financial scandal.
Qatar was the one where Giuliani was weakest, I think. He kept emphasizing that all of the “major clients” of Giuliani Partners have been disclosed, which makes me wonder who’s defining the term “major” and whether any of those undisclosed minor clients might be newsworthy. While watching, the Mrs. said she agreed with Giuliani that if he has a nondisclosure agreement with a client, he has to honor it. I disagreed; when you’re asking for my vote, you’re asking for a lot; I think I’m entitled to know who you’re collecting a paycheck from. (If you wanted to buy influence with a future president, forget bundling $2,300 checks; why not write a six-figure or more check to the candidate’s personal business?)
I think Giuliani’s on solid ground when he says Qatar is a U.S. ally and thus there’s nothing wrong with doing work for their government (think about it; his critics on the left would have us believe we should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran, but we shouldn’t work with the Qataris). But I think a candidate for the president of the United States should disclose where all of his personal income is coming from, at least for the preceding couple of years. (Giuliani will disclose that his income comes from Giuliani Partners, but we don’t know who hired Giuliani Partners.)