|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
Polizzi IPgram
Focused on Highlighting Qualified Candidates for Governance Leaders |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
The Case for
Ken Lewis to Head AIG-Louie Mae
|
|
Dateline: USA, February 22, 2010
The
Case for Dick Cheney to Head Homeland Security
For a moment, forget about political labels and the certitude that the in-power party would not cotton to the idea of Dick Cheney as head of Homeland Security. Instead, take note that, without getting into the specifics of what qualifies one for the job, almost everyone would agree that this man is uniquely qualified for the job. And, a goodly number would submit that, in said position, he would give would-be terrorists cause to think about backing-off for some period. Why is this? For openers, he has an unassailable track record of being deeply involved in the Bush administration’s anti-terrorist programs, and for being downright belligerent in how to deal with terror. There is no ambiguity about his belief that we are at war against terrorist combatants, and that our response is to win the war, instead of engaging in felony prosecutions. We will not hear from him a demented pseudonym for terrorist actions such as: Man-made Disasters. And we wager that he will use his understanding of how to pull levers inside the beltway to skirt around an administration-supported Attorney General whose ideology is putting both our homeland and the world’s security at risk. Specifically, we could expect Cheney to navigate the re-enfranchisement of the CIA to perform in-depth interrogations of captured enemy combatants, and to remove any alternative to the use of military tribunals for prosecuting captured enemy combatants. And we know that he would establish Guantanamo Bay as the home for terrorist interrogations and tribunals. We suspect he would go even further and manage to reposition Gitmo as the World Court & Interrogation Center for Islamic Terrorists. (More on this in a forthcoming article on John Bolton’s New-Foundation United Nations.) We know enough about this man not to be fooled by the mild manner of his deportment. In his heart, despite its imperfections, he is a warrior who has proven his dedication to the good of the country. Yet, he also is a good foot soldier. Until forced to comment by recent events, he kept his disagreement with Bush over terrorist handling and related issues such as Iran, during the last year of the Bush presidency, confidential.. The point is that he can be trusted to be forceful, but not disruptive. Arguably, just as he fostered the technology currently being implemented to monitor shipping containers entering our ports, he can be expected to craft a way to truly protect the nation’s borders from terrorist incursions. This action alone would be sufficient cause to hand Homeland Security over to him. The
Electorate Advise & Consent Process to Place Cheney in Charge of Homeland
Security First, thank you for reading to this point, and not summarily dismissing the idea of Cheney for Homeland Security as a Quixotic idea. The IPgram realistically realizes that there is no way the current progressive administration would nominate Cheney, nor would the progressive senate provide affirmative Advise & Consent. Nonetheless, the objective could be achieved at the latest very early in 2013 -- and sooner under certain scenarios. It all depends upon what the collective, common-cause Electorate does within the next few months. Were the Electorate to include vociferous demands for a Cheney swap-out as part of their demands for political swap-outs, several scenarios are possible. First, if the demands are unrelenting, the press would be obliged to provide some coverage. It will not matter if the coverage is disparaging. The critical point is that the idea of Cheney’s candidacy be introduced into the public mind, and thus would require some form of administration reaction. A reaction would be especially unavoidable were some of the congressional candidates running for reelection this year to voice support for Cheney. Based on how the Obama administration has reacted to criticism to date, defensive retorts would be issued expounding logic-impaired positions. So much so that, at the least, the remedial reaction might well be to replace the current head of Homeland Security with a more qualified person. One who would employ some of Cheney’s approaches to handling terrorism. Clearly a change that would make us more secure. Separately, if our worst fears materialize, and we fervently hope they do not, and a dreadful terrorist attack on the homeland is successful, the outcry would leave the administration and congress no option but to install a Cheney or Cheney-like man in the position with dispatch. Iran achieving operational nuclear bomb status, arguably more serious than a single terrorist attack, may achieve the same result. Otherwise, all candidates vying for president in the 2013 campaign would be hard pressed not to promise to support installation of a Cheney or a like person as head of Homeland Security. We are not unmindful that the former Vice President may well not wish to accept the Homeland Security post. Not necessarily because of his latest “nine lives” heart ailment episode, but to be free to pursue an elected political governance post. That’s OK, provided he supplies a short list of persons he believes are capable of filling the post with comparable competence. Separately, our default alternative candidate is General David Petraeus.
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
