The reason I stopped offering those clarifications and decided against doing so last night is because that is not what most here want to hear.
In fact, I suggest that the author of this article knows/understands Chertoff's statements but still misquotes/misrepresents those statements because he realizes that by telling his readership what they want to hear, he increases his readership.
Well, I'm also not defending Chertoff's position by any means, either. It's abysmal enough without the distortion. I don't know that the distortion here was intentional. I think it's mostly lazy in that they've taken the interpretation of the original out of context quote from the article instead of actually going back to the transcript.