DISQUS

King Bastard · 3 years ago

What's his qualifications to be Director of Homeland Security?

*Crickets*

I thought so.

Aaron · 3 years ago

Dude, don't even start. I didn't say he was qualified or unqualified. My only point is though the revolving door in Washington is active, not more than a year is a little bit short of a period of time to be dismissed. Bush is loyal and is not known to hurriedly get rid of people.

Before you start rattling cages, at least know what you're talking about. It's obvious you don't/

Jesse · 3 years ago

hehe

King Bastard · 3 years ago

My point is that if you're going to be at that level of government, you should be held accountable for your actions. People died because of the lack of action by FEMA and Homeland Security. Whether he was on the job for one week, one month or one year is besides the point -- if he isn't qualified to do the job, he shouldn't be there. Period.

Aaron · 3 years ago

Fair enough point. But whether you think he's qualified and whther he is or isn't (and I'm not saying one way or another), the Senate confirmed him. That's pretty black and white right there. He has the job. Period. And he serves at the whims of the President of the United States, as any Cabinet member does for any President.

Cabinet posts are not, and let me re-empasize are not, elected positions. It matters not what you or I think of Chertoff.

Vinnie Garcia · 3 years ago

I'm not sure why you think Cheney would be on the chopping block. With all the controversy over the last 5 years that Bush/Cheney have been in office, why would they do it now?

Aaron · 3 years ago

Well if Bush had his way Cheney wouldn't be gone. If the GOP leadership have their way, he's gone:

1) He's not running in 2008. It would make sense to setup an incumbent to run.
2) Cheney's popularity rating is extremely low and one has to think how much more he can contribute to the Administration

Vinnie Garcia · 3 years ago

Okay I see where you're coming from. It's more of a "if anyone should go Cheney would be it, not Chertoff". I can agree with that. I still don't think it will happen though.

Aaron · 3 years ago

Well my thing with Chertoff is there is really not a good reason to keep him or lose him. Really. There just isn't anything that he's so fouled up to make him termination material. I mean, DHS.... what does make someone qualified to be the Secretary of DHS? It's such a new beaurocracy. Tom Ridge had his flaws. Chertoff has his. There's just nothing that I see that is so wrong to cut him loose.

King Bastard · 3 years ago

The Republican Senate confirmed him. They also confirmed Brown, and we know how that turned out.

I disagree on the point about the DHS. Fighting terrorism has been around for YEARS. How about selecting someone who is an expert in terrorism and not a lawyer who co-wrote the Patriot Act. Hell, someone from the INS would be better qualified, because they would understand how people try and get into this country legally and illegally.

Aaron · 3 years ago

That assumes that DHS is solely about fighting terrorism. ;)

It's not. In fact, DHS is a combination of 37 former federal agencies including the Coast Guard, INS and some cyber-warfare groups. All of which do not directly deal with terrorism. In fact, the biggest threat to homeland security is indeed cyber warfare and Ridge nor Chertoff has adressed this.

If you think that DHS is supposed to stop planes from flying into buildings, wait until the internet and power grid is completely dismantled via a cyber-attack and banking, digital communication (phones, emails, server connectivity, traffic control, etc) ceases to be able to function. The entire nation would be crippled.

A. J. · 3 years ago

What does it take?

It's all about the cronies, it's all about the photo-ops...Name one good thing this administration has done for this country since their re-election.