Does the top job warrant a background check?
Isn’t it ironic that President Bush’s first-choice nominee to succeed Tom Ridge had his aspirations thwarted by his immigrant nanny? With intelligence matters top-of-mind, can it be considered an intelligence failure that the announced nominee to the nation’s top security job was not subjected to a thorough-enough background check? If not an intelligence failure, it was at least an embarrassment that had the White House defending its vetting process.
Kerik’s nomination had its appeal — what could be better than having a tough-guy former policeman at the helm? With the nomination of Kerik, President Bush signaled a renewed emphasis on local government’s Homeland security role.
Clearly, both politics and security entered into Bush’s choice of Kerik for the post. He appeared to be a solid nominee not only for his cop credentials and no-nonsense persona, but also for his tireless campaigning on Bush’s behalf during the election. Kerik repeatedly equated Bush’s reelection with the cause of fighting terrorism and protecting the Homeland. At press time, we were waiting to hear who will be Bush’s second choice. Whoever it is, the fact is that success in the job will be a function of how well political considerations can be put aside, and focus directed to nuts-and-bolts security issues. We don’t have the luxury of lost momentum.
Kerik was there in New York City on Sept. 11 — and many in the security community remember how eloquently he spoke about his experiences at last year’s ISC-West show. Those experiences no doubt provide Kerik with a gut-level awareness of the importance of Homeland security — and the challenges associated with the protection mission. Too bad he won’t get a chance to use that awareness in the top job.
YOUR THOUGHTS We are looking for reader feedback. E-mail [email protected] and tell us what you think!