Feeling Safer?
The reason every crime, failure, sleazy connection and indiscretion of Bernie Kerik is so important is that it illustrates just how little Bush cares about homeland security. Bush sees Director of Homeland Security as a patronage job to give to a patently incompetent political crony for campaign services rendered rather than a position which requires a competent and ethical professional. Even if Bush could justify his ignorance of all Kerik's other corruption (which he can't), he can't claim ignorance of Kerik's utter failure in Baghdad. And, with all the resources at his disposal, Bush's background check of Kerik was less thorough than would be any sane person's background check when hiring a (non-fictitious) nanny. By nominating Kerik, Bush proved that his rhetoric about being the better choice to protect America from those nasty wolves was nothing but hot, malodorous air.
The above is from a commentator named Roger Ailes. My words below...
<
http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2004_12_12_rogerailes_archive.html#110329497703944778>
I was surfing channels the other day, and stopped at the 700 club, to hear what Pat Robertson was saying about Bush and Kerik. From memory,... "Why in the world is everybody in the 'libral' media giving these good men such a hard time over this? To suggest that you need to do a detailed background check on a young woman who watches over your kids for a few days, that is just ridiculous." (he went on from there) As we are well aware, Robertson is but one of the many influential * apologists. They seem to be apologizing a lot lately.
I may be just a bit strange, but I think I checked out the young lady who used to babysit our kids more than * did Kerik. If I haven't known the baby sitter, his or her family and people they worked for - for a long time, and could verify that the sitter would be responsible, I would not hire that sitter.
Whose children do not deserve this treatment?
Whose country does not deserve this treatment?