Thursday, January 05, 2006
Pothole politics and Homeland Security
According to the highest ranked Democrat in the Federal government, Michael Chertoff should resign for making a decision:
Somebody -- in this case the Secretary of Homeland Security -- has to decide where we will spend our money. Any decision to spend money in a particular place or for a particular purpose is implicitly a decision not spend it somewhere else. Nobody is suggesting that the Republicans, who play pothole politics with the best of them, haven't politicized the setting of Homeland Security's spending priorities. And sure, I can understand Harry Reid complaining that the largest city of his own state got cut from the list -- any decent pol would. But it is just silly to convert that one decision into a demand for Chertoff's resignation. Do the Democrats really think that this sort of grandstanding makes them look more serious on security?
Separately, does anybody think it is a good idea even to have a public risk of "high risk" targets? If there is an area where we need less transparency, rather than more, it is in the hardening of our soft, gooey domestic targets.
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called for the resignation of Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday, one day after the government dropped Las Vegas from a list of cities considered potential high-risk targets eligible for special anti-terrorism grants.
Somebody -- in this case the Secretary of Homeland Security -- has to decide where we will spend our money. Any decision to spend money in a particular place or for a particular purpose is implicitly a decision not spend it somewhere else. Nobody is suggesting that the Republicans, who play pothole politics with the best of them, haven't politicized the setting of Homeland Security's spending priorities. And sure, I can understand Harry Reid complaining that the largest city of his own state got cut from the list -- any decent pol would. But it is just silly to convert that one decision into a demand for Chertoff's resignation. Do the Democrats really think that this sort of grandstanding makes them look more serious on security?
Separately, does anybody think it is a good idea even to have a public risk of "high risk" targets? If there is an area where we need less transparency, rather than more, it is in the hardening of our soft, gooey domestic targets.
1 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Jan 05, 02:40:00 PM:
I think it was the expected reaction from the high-profile Senator from Nevada....similar to the LA senator warning Bushie not to blame the locals for Katrina fumblings.
