I'd like to think that I'm a fairly educated and rational person, but I just can't get my brain wrapped around this. Maybe someone here can help me out.
Michael Chertoff, the guy in charge of protecting our homeland, thinks we will be attacked again. Not based on any specific intelligence information, mind you, but on his "gut." His "gut" says that six years after the worse terrorist attack on our soil we will be hit again. Sometime this summer.
Nevermind that anyone who's even remotely cynical will think this to be a distraction from Le Debacle Iraq, or GonzoGate, or Libby's "Get Outta Jail Before You Squeal" Card, or the problems with our Healthcare, or any of the other issues that have popped up in the past year. No; lets assume this is a given.
When I read Chertoff's panictalk, I think, "OK, either he's lying his ass off, or this whole Administration has to go. Now."
My esoteric logic is as follows: Bush's one saving grace in all affairs foriegn has been that since he has decided to declare war on the Middle East and rob them or their natural resources, America has not had another 9/11. I'm only guessing this has been in spite of the Cobra Commander, and not because of him. Regardless, it's been the bent wild card that he's always played when his hand looks shitty. And no matter how much I disagree with his policies, I can't say that we have been hit since (Our allies? Different story).
More to the point, the remaining 29% or so who still like Bush will use this particular talking point to death. It the "proof" they have that his actions and decisions warrant our complete compliance. The Right-Wing bobbleheads mention this whenever the latest KIA story becomes the "What the Hell Is the President doing?" story. Bush Apologists know this is the one thing, the only thing, they can rest their hat on.
Connected to this is another Bush mantra: "We have to fight them over there so they won't come over here." [On the surface, it has an ABC-type logic. But when one takes into account that this is the 21st-Century (where we have Mapquest, planes, boats and the like) and also asks the question, "Why would they want to fight us over there when they attacked us directly in 2001?" one might come to the conclusion that (1) who we are fighting are not the same people who attacked us, (2) anyone with the capability to attack us once could do so again unless we made major adjustments, and (3) sending a majority of our armed forces away from the homeland may actually make the homeland more vulnerable.]
So, using these talking points as a reference, here's my question: if we have not been attacked since 9/11, and we have to keep a majority of our troops in Iraq to prevent an attack here on American soil, then why does Chertoff have a "gut" feeling that we would be hit? Doesn't his statement imply that (gasp!) these two talking points are complete, utter bullshit?
Personally, it appears that if Chertoff has this feeling, and if people believe that we should take him seriously, then we have yet another reason to demand the resignation of George W. Bush. His entire military strategy has hinged on those two previously-mentioned talking points (especially now that it's painfully obvious that there was nothing resmbling the WMDs that his cohorts claimed existed).
But there's another question about Cherftoff's announcement: what does he expect us to do about it? He's the head of Homeland Security. Bush is (unfortunately) the Commander in Chief. Both of these fools were talking about foiled terrorists attacks almost a year ago! What the hell has changed? The title of that LA Times story should have been
CHERTOFF ASKS INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FOR HELP BECAUSE HE FEARS TERRORIST ATTACK
and the story itself should have been about Chertoff working night and day, sleeping in his office, reading report after report...all in the name of trying to prevent an attack on American soil. Instead, we get the Chicken Little tale we're hearing now. This Administration has spent it's existence telling us they they know what's best for us and now, all of a sudden, they want to give us a "heads up?"
So this is what my "gut" tells me: Chertoff is lying, or the Bush Adminstration has blantantly failed to protect us and this is Chertoff's way of warning us. Because of the arguments made by these people in the past, there's not much room for any other explanation.
If we get attacked, Bush is so out of here.
If nothing happens (and by that I mean not even a foiled attack), then Chertoff needs to go.
UPDATE: Committee on Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson responds to Chertoff (H/T to Think Progress):
Over the past five years, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been dedicated to standing up and building capacity at the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security is charged with deterring, preventing and responding to the threat of terrorism. To that end, systems have been erected to identify risks and communicate them to the American public. With all the resources you have at your disposal and all the progress that you assure us that you are making, I cannot understand why you are quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying you have a "gut feeling" that we are entering a period of heightened risk this summer...
[snip]
...This fall, we will be marking the sixth anniversary of the most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil. With likely action on legislation to implement the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission, Congress is poised to give you more and better opportunities to work with law enforcement in a constructive manner.
Mr. Secretary, I urge you to clarify your comments by providing concrete direction to the State, local and tribal stakeholders and if necessary make the required changes to the Nation’s threat level to ensure that the American public can take the necessary steps to protect their families, businesses and communities.