Skip to main content

Chris Mathews has facilitated the dumbing down of the American public for many years.

  Last night Chris had a guest on talking about airport security. Her name is Ginger McCall. She accused Michael Chertoff of using his influence to get his client the contract to supply scanning machines to airports around the Country. Chris Mathews went on to badger Ginger and make her sound like she was a nut and that she didn't know what she was talking about. He also made her cower when he pressed her and accused her of saying that Michael Chertoff was corrupt. She did say it, and she is right. She should not have let him bully her. Michael Chertoff has been publicly promoting these machines for a long time, and it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention that he was using his influence. He probably owns stock in the company himself or he has it in someone else's name to conceal his conflict of interest. All these guys have insider deal making going on. All the politicians do too. There all corrupt. Chris Mathews wasn't born yesterday. He knows as well as everyone else that politicians and their buddies are always profiting from insider information and deal making.
  I wrote Chris and email and sent it to him. More people need to call these so called newsmen out for there participation in the demise of our Democracy. Here it is below.

To Chris Mathews,
    You think your so clever. You knew before you went on air that Ginger had knowledge of Michael Chertoff using his influence to get his company the contract to install those machines in airports. If you didn't know about Michael Chertoffs' business involving body scanning machines and his push to have them implemented, then you had know right to question Ginger McCall about it and accuse her of being some sort of conspiracy theorist nut. You know damn well, that there is a revolving door of business dealings that goes on with the well connected in Washington. I was going to buy stock in Chertoffs' company. Why,  because I knew his machines were going to be used in airport security. Any idiot could see what was going on. If I knew and Ginger knew, along with thousands of other people, then you either had to know and are being disingenuous and a fraud , or you are living inside the same bubble as the out of touch politicians and are drinking too much Kool Aid. You are part of the problem in this Country. You think no one sees through your vail of deceit. People like you have done the bidding for the corporations and hid the truth from the American people for decades. It is not patriotic to deceive the American people. This is not a game! Our Democracy depends on the truth getting to the people, and you are knowingly distorting the truth and allowing the corporations to take total control of our government. If you don't know the consequences of you actions, maybe you better do some soul searching. History will not be kind to those who help bring down the greatest Democracy the world has ever know, and you are one of those.
                                          I feel sorry for you!

    I mistakenly said Chertoff's company when I should have said his client.
                                                                                                     

Originally posted to Only Me on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:26 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Mathews is becoming the center-left mirror of (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, rosecar, Imhotepsings, farlefty

    Scarborough, occasionally he speaks the truth but you can never count on it.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican every time" Harry S. Truman

    by opticnerver on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:31:33 AM PST

    •  "Becoming?" (3+ / 0-)

      You're right that Matthews can occasionally hit on the truth, which is why I still watch him - and unfortunately I caught his outrageous attack on Ginger McCall last night.  I thought his badgering of McCall was in stark contrast to the segment on KO's show with the guy from The Atlantic, where the guest made basically the same statement McCall did.  We'll see if Chris recants his words when he finds that it's been common knowledge for years that Chertoff was involved in the TSA/Rapiscan dealings, and that - yet again - he's the last guy who gets the real story.  Chris spouts off so often with his ignorance that you'd think he'd take a step back sometimes before challenging what others know.  He made himself look like a complete idiot, and a bully to boot...

      •  I think sometimes he's not really prepared (5+ / 0-)

        or something and he wants to stir things up and earn the show's name, "hardball", and just misses the mark and goes "flying off into the stands" on the follow thru.
        Or something. I can't explain it.
        Some nights he tries to prove he's "center", not "left"
        GOP Homeland Sec. was quite a mess. You had Giuliani and Kerik, then you had Tom Ridge and the bogus "alert levels", every time Bush needed to take over the nightly news cycle.
        Etc.
        Bums.

        •  All of this... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv, BlackSheep1, opticnerver

          he wants to stir things up and earn the show's name, "hardball", and just misses the mark and goes "flying off into the stands" on the follow thru.
          Or something. I can't explain it.
          Some nights he tries to prove he's "center", not "left"

          In a word, he's a "scatterbrain."  He doesn't know what he wants to be, and it seems to change with every issue.  And he seems too lazy (or something) to process all the issues and information he's exposed to into a coherent point of view.  You never know which Chris Matthews you're going to get on a given day...

  •  This is what Chris Matthews does (6+ / 0-)

    he's like a booby trap that is wired to go off randomly.

    He is one of the most intellectually, not to mention ideologically, incoherent people on cable news.

    He can have the worst piece of shit imaginable on his show one night, and give that person a complete pass, even praise him or her. Then, he can have a perfectly earnest and honest person on and, while they are trying to make their point, he suddenly gets loud and angry and verbally mugs that person as if what they suggested was on par with the wildest conspiracy theory or the worst of political bad faith.

    Every now and then, he bombards a person who deserves it, like some PR weasel from BP as the oil was bubbling up, or 'Heck of a Job' Brownie during Katrina's aftermath, and sometimes he will praise a person who is really trying to make things better in this world, but you never know until the interview is well under way what you are going to get.

    What I think bothers me the most is the 'if I don't think you are serious, then, you must be a crackpot' posture.

  •  I'm somewhat confused (0+ / 0-)

    Chertoff's client is Rapiscan.  That doesn't make him corrupt.  

    He hasn't been in government since Bush left office.

    He's doing what lobbyists do.

    "A Canadian is merely an unarmed American with health care." John Wing

    by marigold on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:44:41 AM PST

    •  Don't be confused, making bank on your (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Imhotepsings, farlefty

      government connections isn't really "graft" as such, It's just following the now time honored traditions of blurring the lines between representing and/or looking out for the interests of the American people and squeezing every last dime that you can out of them by appearing to do Part A.

      It's what we do now in America Inc.

      "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican every time" Harry S. Truman

      by opticnerver on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 03:07:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  he did not disclose his ties when (6+ / 0-)

      he testified before Congress...IIRC.  It took citizens to call him out.

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:31:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is Washington corruption (6+ / 0-)

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Since the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

      What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

      An airport passengers' rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff, who left office less than a year ago, for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

      "Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

      There is no reason to sugar coat it.  Corruption in Washington is usually worth a promotion, especially when the general public shrugs just like you have just done.

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:42:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't see Matthews, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Send Rahm a Cheesecake

    but this diary is filled with loose speculation about Chertoff that is unverified.  The further claim

    All these guys have insider deal making going on. All the politicians do too. There all corrupt.

    is equally problematic.  

    Last, your ranting email to Matthews is filled with the same sort of platitudes accusing him of fraud and Kool-Aid drinking.  If you want to be treated seriously, you'll have to deal in substance not blanket accusations.

    None of this excuses Matthews's behavior toward his guest.  He can be a real jerk. But if she had facts to rebut his bullying, he'd have been on the defensive not her.

    •  Just because Chris Mattews is an idiot, (4+ / 0-)

      Ginger McCall was unprepared to defend herself, and you are unwilling to do even basic research doesn't make this conjecture.  

      Since the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

      What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

      An airport passengers' rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff, who left office less than a year ago, for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

      "Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

      That the Washington Post, not the comments at Democratic Underground.

      It is well reported and has been in the news almost a year.  

      Part of the problem is officials get away with this nonsense because well meaning people pay no attention and the forgive and forget even when they are caught.  Anyone who then rereports it is called a rabble-rouser or a liar.

      You should apologize to the diarist.  It is not the diarist fault you decided not to look up the basics.

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:38:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, I didn't realize that the burden of proof (3+ / 0-)

        rested on me.  I thought it was the diarist's responsibility to provide the evidence for his claim.  

        Now that you've set me straight, next time one of my colleagues is about to argue a case in court, I'll remind her that she doesn't need to provide any evidence, she just has to assert her position and it will all work out fine.

        I'll also be sure not to suggest that she write in grammatically sound, complete sentences, or that she should spell words correctly.  As long as she rants with enough passion and uses a sufficient number of cliches, she'll be sure to persuade her opponents as well as any neutral arbiter.  

        For the record, I never said or implied that there was anything acceptable about conflict of interest.   However, I'm not sure that Chertoff now has such a conflict.  Is there a law that he's broken by partnering with a company that makes screening technology, now that he's a private citizen?  Chertoff's support of this technology doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's ineffective.  If there's evidence of that, then we have a different matter on our hands.  One commenter has suggested that other countries have ruled out the use of these machines for that reason, but again what's the evidence for that?

        Are you, the diarist, or Ginger McCall suggesting that screening passengers is not something we should be doing?  That seems to be the concern of the passenger's rights group spokesperson quoted in the Post article.  If that's the case, I respectfully disagree.  I fly monthly, sometimes overseas: as much as it's an inconvenience, screening passengers is an important aspect of transportation security everywhere.  In other countries I've been--Turkey and Germany, for example, the security is much more stringent than in the US. They do a better job of screening checked bags than we do.  

        If there's a technology that makes security screening more effective, I don't really care who sells it, as long as it works effectively and at a reasonable cost.   The fact that some individuals were able to board planes with material that could have done harm is an indication that the current system has weaknesses.  According to the article you cite, Chertoff's partners were the only ones who'd developed technology that could have detected them.  Now another company has come along with a scanner; when the next contracts are available, I expect there'll be competitive bidding and some testing to determine which system is the more effective; perhaps other methods will be designed as well.   Whether or not Chertoff's partners get the deal should be based on an objective assessment of which works best.  

        That would be what we call evidence; that's what my comment first noted was missing from the diary.  

        I'll not expect an apology from you.

        •  hmmm... (0+ / 0-)

          However, I'm not sure that Chertoff now has such a conflict.  Is there a law that he's broken by partnering with a company that makes screening technology, now that he's a private citizen?

          Yes, if he doesn't disclose.  But I am sure he buried the disclosure to keep him clean, but that doesn't impact the incestuous relationship going on between former officials and the private sector.  I call it corruption when you intentionally influence the RFP process to ensure the contract can only be sole-sourced.  Others call it doing business.

           Chertoff's support of this technology doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's ineffective.  If there's evidence of that, then we have a different matter on our hands.  One commenter has suggested that other countries have ruled out the use of these machines for that reason, but again what's the evidence for that?  

          A quick google can find you that information.

          Regardless, a virtual strip search is outside of the bounds of the 4th Amendment in my opinion.

          Are you, the diarist, or Ginger McCall suggesting that screening passengers is not something we should be doing?  That seems to be the concern of the passenger's rights group spokesperson quoted in the Post article.  If that's the case, I respectfully disagree.  I fly monthly, sometimes overseas: as much as it's an inconvenience, screening passengers is an important aspect of transportation security everywhere.

           

          So I beat you.  I fly at least twice a week.  And I AM arguing that this is blatant theater. I find it amazing that people are implying we are doing nothing.  Prior to this mirage being put up, there were metal detectors, x-ray screening, no fly lists, random checks, explosive detection swipes.  But 19 jerks bring box cutters on a plane and we lose are collective minds and decide it is time to give up our rights.

          Newsflash:  There are more people in the line at many times than on the plane.  Explain how this theater actually solves the broader problem.  

          Newsflash:  This technology can't scan cargo according to the company's own website.

          You can throw your money away if you wish. But I don't see any reason why I should be forced to.

          In other countries I've been--Turkey and Germany, for example, the security is much more stringent than in the US. They do a better job of screening checked bags than we do.  

          Unless something changed in the last 6 months, I was not groped nor exposed to radiation when flying through Frankfurt.  I did notice a few guns pointed at me in various countries.  Seems like a good deterrent.  A better one would be to stop the plots before they are executed.  

          Land of the Free.  Home of the Brave.  Meh...not so much anymore, huh?

          If there's a technology that makes security screening more effective, I don't really care who sells it, as long as it works effectively and at a reasonable cost.

          So you would be willing to be taxed at 75% if it could make your security screening safer.  I doubt it.  That is hyberbole.  You could also not go outside and I guarantee you won't be struck by lightning, which has higher odds.

           The fact that some individuals were able to board planes with material that could have done harm is an indication that the current system has weaknesses.  According to the article you cite, Chertoff's partners were the only ones who'd developed technology that could have detected them.

          No, according to the article, Chertoff's company was the only one that could meet the specifications in the RFP...i.e. the RFP was written for them.

          Now another company has come along with a scanner; when the next contracts are available, I expect there'll be competitive bidding and some testing to determine which system is the more effective; perhaps other methods will be designed as well.

          Another research project for you...look up the Government procurement process.

          "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

          by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:55:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have been physically examined in Frankfurt, (0+ / 0-)

            in 2005, and it was a random selection.   I've not been patted down, nor body scanned in the US.     And as for pat-downs--I don't like the idea either, but those are only used when someone refuses the body-imaging, and the body-imaging is used (if I understand Matthews' other guest correctly) if one triggers a second level of screening.  

            A few other rejoinders:

            --So what's your evidence that the RFP was written to insure that Chertoff's partners/clients got the contract?  My original objection to the diary was lack of evidence.  So what's yours?  

            --Your recommendation of a Google search did not turn up any evidence  that the scanner technology is ineffective; it did turn up a number of questionable sources making claims without evidence.  Maybe you've heard this, but a lot of stuff on the internet is not true.  I know, weird.  One of those sources was written by the Flyers Rights spokesperson quoted in the Post article.  I was surprised that in her website, she simply raised all the doubts she has without any substantiation.  Damn that pesky evidence.  

            I did find reference to European tests that found the alternative scanning technology using microwaves has been deemed ineffective and has been discontinued in European airports where they were tried out.   And contrary to what another commenter wrote, the same body-scanning image technology  used in the US is being used in England.  Some passengers at Heathrow expressed concerns about it, but they're still in use there and in Manchester.  

            --75% tax?  Where did that number come from?   Hyperbole?  You're going to argue this on hyperbole or on the statistical likelihood of an attack?  Ok, I'll play.   Lightning:terrorism.  Interesting parallel between a random natural occurrence and an intentional targeted action.  Boy, talk about your false equivalency.  

            But it's good to have you on the record as not supporting security measures.   If another attack is waged, we'll check back with you to see how you think about this, provided that attack is not on one of the 24 flights you take a year.

            --More people in line than on the plane?  I'm not sure what you intend by this "newsflash."   You're aware, I hope, that airports have many flights leaving per day, or at any given time during the day?  So yes, all the people that leave on all those flights are standing in line.   No one gets in line without showing boarding documents--that means they'll be on one of the planes.  Surely, you're not suggesting that each gate have screening?  Because that would blow your 75% tax fantasy into the stratosphere.

            By the way, in Istanbul you don't get into the terminal from the street without going through security, and you don't get through security without boarding documents, and your luggage--both that to be checked and that you intend to carry-on--is screened right there at the door.  

            Last, it's interesting to observe how this discussion has evolved from a complaint about Chris Matthews rudeness to a guest on his show to whether or not airport security is warranted.  I've gone back to Matthews' interview, and yes he was his often rude self in challenging McCall's insinuation of corruption in the process--one that you obviously agree with.  I stand by my original point:--Matthews is a jerk, but McCall better have more than unconnected dots if she wants to go on the public airwaves and indict Chertoff of gaming the system. I'm no Chertoff fan, mind you.   He was Rudy Giuliani's hand-picked man for the job, and Giuliani has been just as involved in making profit out of his 9/11 expertise.   But even though this is the internet, one has the responsibility to have evidence.   Otherwise you run the risk of being just like Glenn Beck who finds guilt by association where ever he wants to find it.

            •  I am on the record and have no problem (0+ / 0-)

              with it...

              But it's good to have you on the record as not supporting security measures.   If another attack is waged, we'll check back with you to see how you think about this, provided that attack is not on one of the 24 flights you take a year.

              Murders everyday, car crashes every minute, millions smoking and getting cancer...

              And you want me to say we need to spend billions of dollars to thwart a single target just to divert criminals to a bigger targets.  

              Yes, I am on the record saying it is idiotic AND a violation of the forth amendment. I see no reason to sacrifice my liberty due to the failures of our intelligence bureaucracy and the wet dreams of 50-100 nutjobs of all races.  

              We can run and hide, but we will no longer be free.  That isn't the country I want to live in.

              "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

              by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:26:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the clarity (0+ / 0-)

                I take it you're probably opposed to seat belt laws and helmets for bike riders?
                How do you feel about vaccination?  While we're at it, what's your stand on HCR; by 2014, you'll be required to buy health insurance.  Does the government have the right to require that of you?

                •  I am going to assume you just missed this part (0+ / 0-)

                  Prior to this mirage being put up, there were metal detectors, x-ray screening, no fly lists, random checks, explosive detection swipes.  

                  Stop creating strawmen.  A seat belt isn't a strip search and a helmet is sexually assaulting anyone.  Neither involves breaching the 4th Amendment.

                  Watch...I can play that game too.  Which other rights are you willing to sacrifice for a facade of security?

                  See how easy that was...

                  Its a piss poor debating topic.

                  Google better next time...

                  http://holt.house.gov/...

                  http://articles.cnn.com/...

                  http://www.dailytech.com/...

                  http://www.examiner.com/...

                  "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

                  by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:08:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I'm also wondering, (0+ / 0-)

                what form of transportation do you plan to use for those 24 trips per year if the rules prevent you from getting on a plane?

                •  its more the 24 trips... (0+ / 0-)

                  and unfortunately, I have been and apparently will continue to be groped...

                  "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

                  by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:09:16 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Chertoff (0+ / 0-)

            If I remember correctly, he was doing it well before he left his position, and everything I said in there is true, or maybe I should have said 99% of all politicians are corrupt. That's probably more accurate. I deal in facts not opinion. Do some research.

  •  I saw the segment and it only goes to (3+ / 0-)

    reinforce the fact that Tweety is a TOOL! Last week I so enjoyed Michael Smerconish when he sat in for Matthews. I actually got to hear the other side of the issues from the people being interviewed rather than listen to Matthews run his smacker.

    The only smarts I have are that I'm smart enough to know I can outwork 'em- Woody Hayes

    by Mighty Ike on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:27:42 AM PST

  •  He didn't know because all he (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mighty Ike, Imhotepsings

    does is go to cocktail parties...he is too busy pissing in his pants to actually do some research.

    He played the O'Reilly bully and it was ugly.  The reason why he is not to be trusted.  Instead of asking questions he just rambles and eventually asks someone if they agree with him.

    If he is so worried, he should stay out of malls, buses, subways, trains...and oh...airport security lines (where there can be more people than any given plane)...

    what a joke....how can a grown man be such a coward?

    "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

    by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:29:50 AM PST

  •  I don't agree with this analysis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Send Rahm a Cheesecake

    I watched this yesterday.

    And while Tweety was his usual hectoring, asshole self, Ginger McCall was not prepared to defend her statments. Tweety trapped her.

    Around here, if you make claims, you are often asked to provide proof. When McCall was asked to provide proof, she wilted.

    I'm not excusing Matthews. I'm not excusing McCall. I'm not excusing Chertoff.

    This segment was alot more heat than light.

    Critical Thinking: The Other National Deficit.

    by cultjake on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:31:22 AM PST

    •  It is not speculation (3+ / 0-)

         Since the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

         What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

         An airport passengers' rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff, who left office less than a year ago, for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

         "Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:38:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you think Chertoff's company (4+ / 0-)

      became the only one to qualify for contracts?

      Chertoff's advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government's first batch of the scanners -- five from California-based Rapiscan Systems.

      Today, 40 body scanners are in use at 19 U.S. airports. The number is expected to skyrocket at least in part because of the Christmas Day incident. The Transportation Security Administration this week said it will order 300 more machines.

      In the summer, TSA purchased 150 machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. Rapiscan was the only company that qualified for the contract because it had developed technology that performs the screening using a less-graphic body imaging system, which is also less controversial.

      No way the RFP was built based on Chertoff's inside info.

      If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

      "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

      by justmy2 on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 04:44:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the links... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Standard Deviant

        But I wasn't arguing whether Chertoff is corrupt or not.

        My point is that if you want to actually say something, don't go on Hardball.

        If you do go on Hardball, be prepared for the Tweety fight.

        Critical Thinking: The Other National Deficit.

        by cultjake on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 05:10:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Doesn't Like Any Talk Of JFK Conspiracy... (0+ / 0-)

    either.

    He's sticking to the magic bullet theory.

    I saw him tear into Jesse Ventura and he seemed pretty upset that Jesse would even suggest such a thing.

    Guess who devised the magic bullet theory??

    No other than a young Arlen Specter.

    JimmyP

    The smarter and harder I work, the luckier I get!

    by JimmyP on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 05:24:32 AM PST

  •  This all misses the fact that if some bureaucrats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rubyr, JeffW

    In the Nigerian embassy and in Yemen had been alert, they would have been right on top of this guy.
    This is where the meat and potatoes of the security is, in law enforcement and intel. in the danger zones.
    Ultimately we have to have the multinational corporations stop stirring things up in these countries where there are resources they want.
    They're going to have to quit exporting poverty, disease and famine into these countries.
    For instance, while Big Oil is spending billions to extract oil and gas in the gulf and caribbean all around Haiti, these poor people are dying for want of a fraction of a percent of the wealth they should have a stake in. That's obscene.
    We have evangelical religious organizations picking fights with Islam in very unstable, sensitive countries in central Africa.
    And there are people who are supplying the explosives, guns, RPGS, land mines, and stinger missiles to these various organizations and factions around the world.
    In other words, we're going to have to get deeper into the roots of these problems or we will NEVER be safe no matter how many machines we buy.

  •  Chris Mathews believes that Newt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1

    (I didn't get better!) Gingrich will win the republican primary in 2012. 'Nuff said.

    Class War. There, I said it. If we don't like the sound of it we need to convince them to stop waging it.

    by reddbierd on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 08:50:23 AM PST

  •  A Country on the Brink (0+ / 0-)

    Has any of you read my "A Country on the Brink". It says it all. Maybe not all, but it says a lot.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site