Letters

Weighing in on Giuliani

It was unfair of The Post to give Vincent Cannato the choice of eating his own words or trashing ours (Book World, Sept. 3). Of course, he could've said, "No, I can't review Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 because its core message is the opposite of what I've already written." But that's clearly too much to expect from a man who's made his bones as chief of staff to New Jersey's most conservative Republican, ex-mayor Bret Schundler, as well as on the opinion pages of the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. Given an opportunity to assail a book that questions the prescience, preparation and 9/11 response of Rudy Giuliani, Cannato couldn't let the twinge of conscience overcome the tug of duty.

Just a year ago, Cannato wrote a 2,300-word salute to Giuliani in the Weekly Standard that also served as his review of Fred Siegel's equally star-struck tome, entitled Prince of the City . Cannato concluded that "the city's response to 9/11 was part of years of planning" and that Giuliani "admirably did not share" what Cannato called "the general complacency toward terrorism in the 1990s." Just to make sure we got his partisan contrast, Cannato repeated that "unlike many in Washington during the 1990's, Giuliani and his associates saw terrorism as 'an ongoing threat.' " Giuliani proved, summed up Cannato, "that the city was 'governable' while under terrorist attack." Cannato did not disclose that his Siegel review returned a favor. Siegel had written a gush about Cannato's book, The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and His Struggle to Save New York , in The Post in 2001. Cannato upgraded Siegel's declaration that the Lindsay book was "essential reading," rating Siegel's work as "required reading."

Every one of the Cannato judgments about Giuliani in his 2005 Siegel review -- including his praise of Giuliani's emergency-management operation -- is challenged in our book with more detail and evidence on a single page than Siegel managed in his entire examination of Giuliani's readiness résumé. In fact, contrary to Cannato's claim then that Giuliani was "aware of the risks of terrorism since the first attack in 1993," we establish from a dozen named and inside sources that he never mentioned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and never questioned his police and emergency management commissioner candidates about it. The top uniformed police official throughout the Giuliani era said he prepared detailed descriptions of the city's most vulnerable sites, with the World Trade Center at the top, and briefed the mayor who, he said, "glazed over" during the discussion.

Cannato's review was only the latest evidence of his Giuliani devotion. As the Boston Globe put it, Cannato's book concluded with "a celebration of the age of Giuliani," whom he called the "un-Lindsay."

-- WAYNE BARRETT and DAN COLLINS

New York

Vincent Cannato replies :

I have to admit it is amusing to be accused of ideological bias by Wayne Barrett, a writer for the supremely un-objective (but entertaining) Village Voice.

You also have to wonder about the authors' skills as investigative reporters when they can't even get my former job title correct. I was never chief of staff to Mayor Bret Schundler, merely a lowly aide. And I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with my review.

Barrett and Collins's letter displays an obsession with the motives of others that is a central theme of their book. If an individual doesn't share their white-hot hatred of Giuliani, then he must be a political hack. Theirs is a petty style of argument, and I'll let readers compare the tone of my review with the personal attacks of their letter. (You mean I have actually written for the Wall Street Journal? Gasp!)

The authors ignore the central issue of the review. If Giuliani's supposed negligence of terrorism was so obvious, why didn't one of the authors, in his 2000 tabloid biography of Giuliani, bring up the issue? And why, when the book did mention Giuliani's creation of the Office of Emergency Management "bunker," did Barrett dismiss it as "militarist overkill"? Now who was being dismissive of security issues pre-9/11?

Send letters to us at bwletters@washpost.com.