Replies

Look, it may or may not be overstatement. But what do you expect Chertoff to say? "No, there's no nuclear threat. In fact, we've miscalculated, so let's cut our personnel and funding." Of course not. It's part of his job to say things like this, especially at that laboratory where he blows smoke up the rear ends of his audience. He does this for several reasons (1) PR to them; (2) keep America vigilant or aware, depending upon your viewpoint; (3) provide cover in case something DOES happen, so they can say "I told you so."; (4) keep those cards and letters (funding) coming in. It will be much more convincing if they gave a damn about closing the open border. That one fact alone is more telling than all the speeches put together.

I couldn't agree with you and everyone posting statements that we President Bush needs to improve security on our borders. He defeats his own purpose of protecting the American people by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq but not doing anything to secure U.S. borders.

However your statement that the purpose of Chertoff's warning ignores the fact that we have been attacked on our own soil more than once. the last time resulting in the deaths of 3,000 Americans. If it can happen once and it can happen again. Please explain to everyone what intimate knowledge you posses from inside sources within Homeland Security proving that this is all a PR ploy and is arbitrarily using Nuclear weapons as an excuse keep the funding. Your statements are only assumptions without facts.

There are two options to consider:

1. If we assume there will be no nuclear attack or any other type of attack, don't plan accordingly and are wrong then the worst case scenario is many people will die.

If we assume there maybe an attack of any kind, including nuclear, plan accordingly but are wrong then the worst case scenario is noone dies. I choose the latter.

Of course we have been and, in all likelihood will be again, attacked. But you mischaracterize what I said: I did not say that it was ALL a PR ploy. My first sentence clearly stated that it may or may not be overstatement.

My point is that he would make the same statements whether he was worried about an attack next week or whether he didn't think there was any possibility of attack (or any point in that contiuum). Therefore, it is not logical to infer what you did, that Farah was correct and we are in grave danger. We may or may not be. You cannot tell it from what he says. And what he and the administration DOES augers against them really feeling great danger.