Michael Chertoff sucks, right? Blame Petty Politicians

[Aristotle]

So by now we all know that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is a bureaucrat who certainly doesn't have the Right Stuff to run Homeland Security.

Isn't it a shame Bernard Kerik, former New York City police commissioner who shined during 9/11, isn't in the job instead?

Oh wait. Bernard Kerik was the guy who actually got nominated before Chertoff.

Oh wait. Bernard Kerik's nomination was ruined by the political muck raking, Bush-bashing knee-jerk lackies who dug into his past enough to find a nanny that he didn't withold SSI taxes for. The fact that virtually nobody in our COUNTRY pays taxes for people they hire to do work in and around their home doesn't matter, right? It was absolutely VITAL that we string up this extremely qualified individual and make sure he didn't get the job!!! DAMN STRAIGHT!

Anything that hurts George Bush is good for the country right? HELL YEAH!

Well, I guess now we see what good scoring cheap political points actually does for the country.

Instead of having a no-nonsense, tough, get-the-job-done kind of guy like Bernard Kerik running Homeland Security, we have a pencil pushing bureacrat like Michael Chertoff instead.

I'm sure all the people who are dead and suffering as a result are glad that at least some politicians got to score a few points against George Bush.

I don't like Bush. Among other things, I think he is a poor leader who doesn't understand that being President of the United States is not being CEO of a country. I think he means well, and I don't actually think he lies to the American people. But you can't delegate everything. The President has to INSPIRE and LEAD- he cannot just manage. So I can totally understand people who dislike George Bush.

But it sickens me that there are so many people out there, both in politics and just in our populace, who are only happy when something doesn't go Bush's way. It is because of those types of people that our country is not operating at its optimal level right now. It is why we cannot at least unify BETWEEN elections to work together as a nation. It is why we have Chertoff on the job instead of Kerik.

I hope these people are happy with the death and suffering they exacerbated.

[Malacasta]

Chertoff was special counsel to the Whitewater Commission and a member of the Federalist society. Michelle Malkin wrote, "A look at Chertoff's strong, aggressive record and statements on homeland security shows that Chertoff supports the kind of hard-headed, threat profiling measures and immigration enforcement opposed by the anti-profiling zealots". Read more here.

From the above, it's pretty clear that Chertoff is not a friend of the Bush-bashing crowd. It was probably an astute move for GWB to nominate a person who ruled against asylum for a tortured man from Bangladesh, or a woman sterilized against her will in China since Kerik's reason for withdrawing from the nomination had to do with hiring a foreign worker, and perhaps appearing soft on immigration. Chertoff's position on foreigners certainly fitted in with the direction that Homeland security had been heading with the Patriot act.

Kerik himself probably withdrew from the nomination for more reasons than not paying taxes on a nanny. Wikipedia says the following:

On December 2, 2004, Kerik was nominated by President Bush to succeed Tom Ridge as United States Secretary of Homeland Security. But on December 10, after a week of press scrutiny, Kerik withdrew acceptance of the nomination. Kerik stated that he had illegally hired a foreign worker as nanny and housekeeper and that he had failed to pay taxes required for her employement. Similar violations of immigration law had previously caused the withdrawal of the nominations of Linda Chavez as Secretary of Labor by G.W. Bush and of Zoe Baird as Attorney General by Bill Clinton.

Shortly after withdrawal of the nomination, the press reported on several other scandals which might also have posed difficulties in gaining confirmation by the Senate. These include outstanding arrest warrant from 1998 stemming from unpaid bills on the maintenance of a condominium (documents regarding this warrant were faxed to the White House less than three hours before Kerik submitted his withdrawal of acceptance to the President), questions regarding Kerik's sale of stock in Taser International shortly before the release of an Amnesty International report critical of the company's stun-gun product, two simultaneous extra-marital affairs, a sexual harassment lawsuit, allegations of misuse of police personnel and property for personal benefit, connections with a construction company suspected of having ties to organized crime, and failure to comply with ethics rules on gifts.

I'm not sure who I'd prefer to have as the head of FEMA when the choice is between a hardline, right wing ideologue, or a man who plays quick and fast with the law.

It is impossible to accept that from all the talented individuals in the United States only these two were worthy of nomination. Frankly when I read "I hope these people are happy with the death and suffering they exacerbated" with respect to the people who investigated Kerik and prompted his withdrawal, I believe a more worthy target of that moral outrage would be the person responsible for nominating two men with such dubious credentials.

I do think that the comparison between Kerik and Chertoff raises an interesting question. In very crude terms, Kerik represents the saviour who reacts to immediate catastrophe. Someone like him might well have been the difference between life and death in NOLA. Chertoff represents the guardian who prevents catastrophe by cleansing a country of its evil elements and holding the foreign barbarian hordes at bay. For those who believe that there is real chance of a terrorist attack in the US, someone like Chertoff might be the better man for the job.

What I’d like to know then is this; Why FEMA doesn’t have both someone to prevent bad things, and someone to respond to bad things? And why did they fail so badly?

[Aristotle]

The failures of FEMA is a big surprise. Normally they are excellent. Something is wrong there.

Anyway, my whole point with this thread is people/politicians who go after people with a chainsaw just to score political points really fail to see the potential after-effects of their actions.

It appears to me, that in this situation, Kerik may have been the better man for the job. One has to wonder how things might have been different with him in office.

I have read all about the various things he has been accused of, and they certainly don't make me think highly of him personally. They are also things that would make me say he should not be someone you vote for an elected office. But things are different in a job where all that matters really is RESULTS (e.g. Homeland Security). I would prefer someone who gets the job done and might have some shady incidents in his past (none of them were serious, imho) than a bureaucrat/idealogue.

But most importantly, no matter who we decide on to fill certain jobs as a country, I want it done for actual, legitimate reasons, not just because "hey, isn't it fun to make the guy I hate (Bush, Clinton, whoever) look bad and lose this political battle! HAHA!"

[Lokrian]

I think the same crew were in charge last year when 4 hurricanes hit Florida. IF they got flack for anything last year, it was for being too open handed with FEMA money in areas not really struck by the hurricanes.

It's not real sexy, and it doesn't lend itself to a lot of press coverage, but the basic reason this turned out as badly as it did is New Orleans is a poor city per capita and it costs a lot of money to maintain a strong levy system. The levies breaking took everyone by surprise since the hurricane supposedly veered at the last minute.

That's what Gen. Honore tried to tell everyone up front, but no one seems inclined to listen anymore. It was actually a two for one disaster. Just about the time the hurricane blew through, and folks were getting set to come in, the levies broke. Blam. Instant snafu. It's just about that simple I think.

Even the govorner's screw ups in not authorizing federal action sooner wouldn't have amounted to much had the levies not given in after the storm had already passed.

Now we will have a big giant to-do a-la 9/11 and spend a lot of time and money fixing things that aren't really broken, or that were one time accidents, and the levies no doubt will continue to be sucky because New Orleans is a poor city, per capita.