Should OBL had been person of the year instead of Giuliani?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

As you all know, NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani was named Person of the year in 2001. Should i have gone to the leader of the group who staged the attack, or did they make the right choice? Or should they had gone with someone else entirely?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It should have gone to Osama. It's not supposed to be a reward for good behavior.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Either OBL or the heroic emergency responders who fought in the rubble to find survivors.
Rudy wasn't as large an influence as he claimed to be.

[Slow Learner]

Yes. And Al-Baghdadi should've got it in 2014

[Sumner 1868]

I think they should have picked New York City as person of 2001.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Yes, he was clearly man of the year. It's not meant to be an honor, and because it's now perceived that way idiot neo-Nazis on Youtube claim Hitler being named man of the year proved his popularity with the people of the time.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No it should have been George W Bush

[Lyin' Steve]

It's 15 years later.  When we think 2001, we think Osama, not Giuliani.  That simple.
Honestly I've forgotten most of Giuliani from that era.  I just remember all the shaky videos of him walking around New York during the attacks and giving solemn press conferences in the days after.  If Time was expecting him to become an inspirational figure for future generations, they missed the mark, since the firefighters and first responders ended up taking that mantle.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Objectively, yeah, but I understand why Time didn't think it was a good idea in the context.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It should have gone to Osama. It's not supposed to be a reward for good behavior.

Precisely.

[Cory]

It should have gone to Osama. It's not supposed to be a reward for good behavior.

Precisely.