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". :-(


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.

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. To disparage a
gut feeling in this circumstance and require compelling dispositive
proof before taking action is precisely how 9/11 came to happen. It's
precisely how the Cole grew the hole in her hull. It's precisely how
party goers died in a disco in Germany. Had more gut feelings been
followed, the heightened state of vigilance would have prevented
engagement in this instances by permitting more proactive defensive
postures.

Give me a Marine with a gut feeling over a so-called scientific
approach any day. ANY DAY.

In other words, I'll walk into a hot zone with a Marine at my side
before I'd walk into a public school with you.


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."

Forgive me for saying this, but paper tigers are made of these.

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".

Zeke Zzzppt wrote:

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.



And you think a judge can't get a gut feeling about impending
matters?

You're more cynical than I thought.




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".

Zeke Zzzppt wrote:

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.




And you think a judge can't get a gut feeling about impending matters?

You're more cynical than I thought.



I consider his "gut" just fear mongering.



Well, then. That should be good enough for all of us.


I know I'm sure relieved.

Zeke Zzzppt wrote:

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.

D Peter Maus wrote:

And you think a judge can't get a gut feeling about impending matters?

You're more cynical than I thought.

Jeez, you keep missing the point... cynical has nothing to do with it. I
never said a desk bound judge couldn't have a "gut feeling". (But the
point being he IS a desk man and a political appointee and has NOT had
any day-to-day front line intelligence experience).

For the final time, my point IS that with all the BILLIONS spent on
homeland security and with him having access to EVERY law enforcement
agency in the country, from big to little and access to some Western
European agencies also, I think he should have a least a -shred- of real
evidence from at least one of these outfits before he goes on national
TV and gets everybody all geeked up over his gut.

The American people deserve better than a "gut feeling" for the billions
spent. It's just more fear mongering to get the sheep to think we need
the politicians to "save" us...

Zeke Zzzppt wrote:

Zeke Zzzppt wrote:

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.

D Peter Maus wrote:

And you think a judge can't get a gut feeling about impending
matters?

You're more cynical than I thought.

Jeez, you keep missing the point... cynical has nothing to do with it. I
never said a desk bound judge couldn't have a "gut feeling". (But the
point being he IS a desk man and a political appointee and has NOT had
any day-to-day front line intelligence experience).

For the final time, my point IS that with all the BILLIONS spent on
homeland security and with him having access to EVERY law enforcement
agency in the country, from big to little and access to some Western
European agencies also, I think he should have a least a -shred- of real
evidence from at least one of these outfits before he goes on national
TV and gets everybody all geeked up over his gut.

The American people deserve better than a "gut feeling" for the billions
spent. It's just more fear mongering to get the sheep to think we need
the politicians to "save" us...



No, Sweetheart, in your zeal to find something by which to be
offended, you've missed the point entirely....

The 'gut feeling' is where it starts. The research, the intel, and
the gathering of evidence follows.

Which is precisely what Chertoff was telling you.