Here's still more on Rudy's acceptance of Pat Robertson's endorsement despite his agreement that America "deserved" 9/11.
A rival campaign points out that back in 2001, Rudy very publicly turned down a $10 million donation for disaster relief from a Saudi prince because the prince had suggested that U.S. Mideast policies had contributed to the 9/11 attacks.
During a visit to Ground Zero shortly after the disaster, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered condolences to Americans and handed Rudy a $10 million relief check. But the Prince also said that America "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." In response, Rudy rejected the money because of the prince's suggestion that the U.S. was in any way remotely responsible for the disaster, saying:
"I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people."
The rejection of the Saudi prince's $10 million is a big point of pride for Rudy, something he currently brings up as proof of his anti-terrorism zeal.
Yet here he is cheerfully accepting the endorsement from Robertson, who went even further than the Saudi prince, agreeing that America deserved 9/11 not because of policies but because of its sinful ways.
There are two morals to this tale. The first: Rudy will turn away $10 million in relief for other people from someone who sort of blamed America for 9/11 if it gives him a chance to do a bit of garden variety political grandstanding and get big tabloid headlines. But he'll overlook such comments if it will allow him to help himself politically, as the Robertson endorsement does.
The second moral: If an Arab sort of blames America for 9/11, it's despicable. If a Christian fundamentalist/extremist does it, it's not a problem at all.