Rudy

Today is Rudy Giuliani's 65th birthday.

For nearly eight years, it has been hard, if not impossible, to think of Giuliani and not be reminded of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. With George Bush bouncing from one airfield to the next in Air Force One and Dick Cheney seeking refuge in a bunker beneath the White House, Giuliani was probably the most prominent politician Americans saw that day.

That's understandable. He was the mayor of New York City. At the time of the attacks, he wasn't very popular and New Yorkers were actually in the process of selecting his successor when the hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers, but he was expected to play a major role.

And the public's memory of that day is of a mayor who was reassuring in a crisis, whose leadership resulted in the nickname "America's Mayor."

Giuliani — who was barred by law from seeking a third term, anyway, but might well have been defeated if he had been eligible to run again and had been on the ballot that day and no attacks had taken place — cultivated the image. When Bush was nominated for a second term in 2004, Giuliani gave a speech endorsing the president, telling the delegates that, after the towers collapsed, he told Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."

The authenticity of the statement was disputed by many, particularly after Giuliani recommended Kerik to be secretary of Homeland Security. When unsavory elements of Kerik's background emerged, it raised doubts about both Giuliani's judgment and the vetting process in the Bush White House.

Such criticism notwithstanding, Giuliani launched his own bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. In 2007, he led many polls, but his campaign fizzled in 2008. There were many reasons for this, but I've always felt that a big part of it was that, by 2008, being "America's Mayor" was not seen as sufficient qualification for the presidency — except, perhaps, among some who still saw terrorism as the nation's greatest threat.

But far more were concerned about escalating food and energy prices — and then, after the conventions, the main concern was the rapidly collapsing economy.

Actually, Giuliani didn't seem particularly concerned about terrorism in the years between the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and the hijackings in 2001. He seldom mentioned the 1993 attack in public, and he was criticized for preparedness measures that were regarded as inadequate.

Given the nature of the 2001 attacks, perhaps it was unrealistic to think there was any way to be adequately prepared.

But there could have been little, if any, doubt after September 11 that Islamic extremists would seek to attack America again. What was uncertain was the kind of attack it would be, what the target would be or when the terrorists would strike.

I am convinced that, after the hijackings, the top law enforcement minds in America, whether they were in the FBI or the CIA, whether as part of a formal directive or undertaken informally, began trying to imagine what the next attack might be and encouraged preparations for it.

Some acted like generals, determined to fight the last war instead of trying to anticipate the next one, and they focused on preventing future hijackings and improving security in large buildings.

The next terrorist attack on American soil might very well involve hijacked airlines — but I have believed, ever since that day in 2001, that the terrorists would attack in some other way, some way that was not as heavily scrutinized as air travel had become.

Others, I am sure, sought to think outside the box. They used their knowledge of the Middle East, Islamic extremism and Osama bin Laden's previous statements — as well as their knowledge of the existing gaps in American security — as they formulated their scenarios.

Somewhere, in some file in the FBI or the CIA, I'm sure there is a plotline that closely mirrors what the next attack will be. It was written hypothetically, of course, but it may have inadvertently named the city where the attack actually will take place and what will be the next "Ground Zero." It may even have approximated the number of casualties.

That attack is still in the future. But I'm sure its outline has already been written, along with hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

And, when that next attack occurs, as it almost certainly will, I have no doubt that some investigator will discover the existence of this file and will question the director of Homeland Security about it. That investigator will want to know why more wasn't done to prepare for this attack since it clearly had been envisioned by someone long before it happened.

What will the director of Homeland Security say?

Will he/she point out that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such scenarios in the agency's files, that the budget did not provide enough money or manpower to adequately prepare for them all?

Will he/she say that intelligence did not provide sufficient time to prepare, even if it was able to identify which scenario was the correct one?

I believe Joe Biden was right when, during the campaign, he said Barack Obama would face a test.

On the international stage, I do not believe Obama has faced that test yet.

I do believe that time is coming. I hope America will be ready when it arrives.