Zeke Zzzppt wrote:


So, while you're on the subject, is there a place for government
fear-mongering? Like Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff, with
access to -every- law enforcement agency in the US and probably the
Western world, and the best he can come up with is ..."Gee, I have
this gut feeling". :-(


D Peter Maus wrote:

Some of the greatest scientific discoveries have come as a result of a
gut feeling. Ask anyone who's been in combat if they don't develop a
'spidey sense' of impending engagement while on patrol. Ask anyone who's
served in law enforcement if they've not developed a gut feeling about a
suspect based on very slightly discernable behaviours. Ask anyone who's
ever worked in Customs if a gut feeling hasn't led to an arrest and
confiscation of contraband.

Unfortunately, Chertoff never served in law enforcement, Customs nor has
he ever "been out on patrol". He's a lawyer, judge and a political
appointee, not someone with field experience or magical powers.

The hard reality is that gut feelings can be inaccurate. They can also
be abused, like anything else. But they develop as a result of front
line experience and are right more often than not.

See above -- he's had no "front-line experience". He's a desk man.

But you miss my point completely. With Chertoff having total and
unlimited access to everything from the CIA to the FBI to Scotland Yard
to the East Podunk Township Police Department and everything in between,
he DOESN'T NEED to rely on "gut feelings". He didn't give one single
tiny shred of any support or evidence other than his "gut". Sorry, but
unless he bases it on the wide resources he has access to, I consider
his "gut" just fear mongering.

It's real easy to armchair quarterback the guy sitting in the big
chair. And it's real easy to criticize someone charged with
responsibility based on your politics and his colloquial speech. But
I've noticed your criticism does not come accompanied with an
alternative practical solution other than "Impeach Bush."

Huh? At NO time and nowhere in my post did I say, mention, hint at or
allude to the "I" word. I have no idea where you got that idea from
(other than a Freudian slip on your part). ;-)

And, yes, my "alternative solution" was that he base his getting the
public aroused on the tons of resources he has, not his "gut".

P.S. Just to anticipate you saying "he can't give away his sources", I
believe (if he actually had anything), he could have made a "generic"
statement like "Intelligence sources report that...") without letting
any cats out of the bag or trusting us to solely rely on his "gut".