Reply
Mon 13 Dec, 2004 07:46 pm
what a hoot, the voters say they voted their concerns about "values." Bush nominates Kerik. This guy makes Spiro Agnew look like a choirboy.
Quote:A 1998 New Jersey arrest warrant for Kerik over unpaid condominium dues. He was bankrupt in 1987, cash-strapped in 1998 and now is worth millions, made through the sale of stock options earned during 18 months on the board of Taser International, which makes stun guns sold to government (including the Department of Homeland Security).
An illicit relationship with a subordinate while he was New York City's corrections commissioner. That relationship now has spawned a civil lawsuit.
Allegations uncovered by a New York newspaper within days of his nomination that, as police commissioner, "Kerik accepted thousands of dollars in cash and gifts without making proper public disclosures." Many of those gifts came from an employee of a "major city contractor."
Reports that he had homicide detectives fingerprint employees of a television network because another lover (and publisher of his memoirs) believed they had stolen things from her.
A $2,500 fine levied against Kerik by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board for using city detectives to do research for those memoirs.
Unanswered questions about Kerik's behavior in Iraq. He was dispatched to oversee training of a new Iraqi police force, a job that was supposed to last the better part of a year. Just a few months later he quietly left Iraq. Why he did has never been explained, at least not in public.
The list goes on, but the picture is clear: Kerik is, to say the least, ethically challenged and monumentally arrogant. And yet not one of these red flags apparently came to the attention of those responsible for his vetting. Newspaper reporters could dig out these items but the federal government couldn't? What a comedy of errors.
On top of all that is the question of what remotely qualified Kerik to whip the ineffectual and marginalized Department of Homeland Security into shape. What he seems best at is cozying up to Giuliani, his patron in city government and now his partner in business. While Kerik won plaudits for his actions in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he has little of the management experience and bipartisan respect it will take to do the homeland security job.
This stuff, well some of it, has been all over the airwaves today - why is everyone so focused on the piddly nanny issue?
littlek wrote:This stuff, well some of it, has been all over the airwaves today - why is everyone so focused on the piddly nanny issue?
Because that distracts from his
real problems, like two extramarital affairs simultaneously.
Great job of vetting there, Alberto.
Many will enter, few will win.
Countdown:
* fathering an illegitimate child
* profiteering on director's shares of a company that provides equipment (specifically, tasers) to DHS
* personal bankruptcy
* a warrant for his arrest resulting from a bad condo deal
* an illegal immigrant in his employ, paid under the table
* kickbacks on a prison cigarette scam when he was running a NY prison
* illegally using police resources (e.g., real, live police officers) to do the legwork for his autobiography
.... oh, there's more, but we get the picture.
In short, he seemed like a perfect Bush guy.
Given Bush, Cheney, et. al.'s laundry list of legal and moral peccadilloes, I had to wonder, then, why they saw fit to tube Kerik's ascension to power. After all, it's not like Kerik supervised the creation of a web of lies in order to lead a nation to war, oversaw the occupation of a sovereign nation resulting in the sanctioned torture of enemy combatants or the brutalization and murder of tens of thousands of civilians, rigged contracts, engaged in insider trading, or ran several companies into the ground. In fact, Kerik was pretty well liked by those who worked under him and his rise through the ranks of the NYC police bureaucracy is very impressive, given his humble origins...
And then it dawned on me. Kerik's wears his past misdeeds like ugly scars precisely because of his humble origins. Without the soft media focus afforded those of regal bearing, a sinner like Kerik doesn't stand a chance -- nor do the royals in power want to be touched by the blight of a common street thug like Kerik. Absolution of sins like his requires old money -- the kind of money and power that can rewrite history, like it did in George W Bush's case.
Kerik will return to private life as a partner in Giuliani Associates, where one can assume Giuliani will routinely turn to him and say "Bernie, thank God George Bush is president" while they both laugh all the way to the bank.
Note to self: never make
P Diddie mad at you, people will believe him.
Is that your stuff Diddie? its great !!
WTF, farm?
Do I ever ask you where your **** comes from? :wink:
Really, the legend of Kerik just grows larger with each passing day. Read this, from
Newsweek:
Quote:"Kerik's somewhat cavalier attitude is best captured by his time in Iraq. After the invasion in the spring of 2003, Kerik was sent to Baghdad to organize the Iraqi police. But Kerik didn't seem to show much interest in Iraqis, said a senior U.S. official who worked with him. He appeared to enjoy going on night raids against "bad guys" with some South African mercenaries who were serving as bodyguards to U.S. officials. On his screen saver, Kerik had a photo of a big house he had just bought in New Jersey that he said was across the street from former New York Giants quarterback Phil Simms's. Kerik told his colleagues he planned to be in Baghdad for three months while the house was undergoing renovations. 'So,' the official says he told Kerik, 'you're here because you needed a place to go while they're doing renovations on your house.' Kerik grinned and cocked a finger as if to say, 'You got it.' A spokesman for Kerik said that story was 'absurd' and that Kerik was a patriot."
(edited to add emoticon to make certain farmerman knew I was kidding)
Quote:"Kerik was a patriot"
ah, now we know what Bush means by "patriot."
A Macchiavellian machination would be to elevate some/any thug to a cabinet position... but only after ascertaining in advance that they are vulnerable.
The list of Kerik's KNOWN faults is substantial enough to initiate speculation as to just how much is NOT publicly known... isn't it likely that there may be OTHER, additional exploits Kerik would rather not have spotlighted?
People in that position have a tendency to "toe the line".
Especially since they are aware that failure to dance on cue can result in exposure.
The trouble with this sort of arrangement... such captive minions tend to desert en masse in times of crisis (they "resign" while their masters' attention is diverted) .
Imagine revolving doors for your Cabinet/Ministry positions...
For those of you who believe that the Kerik situation reveals a screening failure on the part of the BUsh Administration, please explain how the administration might have, otherwise, done a "proper" job of vetting.
Do you mean to suggest that the administration should hire private dicks to investigate potential cabinet members?
Listening (no, don't quaver)
finn, the process seems to involve people who are, as we say.'without clue', so why not private contractors. Kerik could have been done by a simple call to any day room of a NY paper. These things, especially the Tiffany badge and the judy Regan thing were topics on "wait wait, dont tell me". Not like it was a big secret. DC people oughta see outside the beltway once in a while.
you have to admit , its funny.
Kerik should have known his past was checkered. He should have declined the nomination and backed out of the process...
Oh, I'm sure Bernie never considered his past 'checkered'.
But Bushco
certainly did:
Quote:Bush administration lawyers who vetted former New York City police Commissioner Bernard Kerik before President Bush named him to head the Homeland Security Department knew he had a "colorful past" but concluded that his long record of public service would outweigh questions about his conduct, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Monday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the lawyers were aware that Kerik had been questioned in a civil lawsuit involving questions about an alleged extramarital affair with a corrections employee; the failure to properly report financial gifts on disclosure forms; and an arrest warrant issued after he failed to pay condo fees.
"The lawyers looked at all these issues," said the official. "We believed they were not disqualifying.
They thought that the "good" would outweigh the "bad".
Of course, in their dictionary, "good" is defined as saying things like
this:
Quote:Back in April, Kerik said that another 9/11 attack is more likely under President Kerry, telling the New York Daily News, "If you put Sen. Kerry in the White House, I think you are going to see that happen...and I don't want to see another Sept. 11."
Quote:Of course, in their dictionary, "good" is defined as saying things like this:
Quote:
Back in April, Kerik said that another 9/11 attack is more likely under President Kerry, telling the New York Daily News, "If you put Sen. Kerry in the White House, I think you are going to see that happen...and I don't want to see another Sept. 11."
I like it when people get right down to the heart of the matter.
Of course it is not the fault of the administration nothing is the fault of the administration.
McGentrix wrote:Kerik should have known his past was checkered. He should have declined the nomination and backed out of the process...
Agreed. Not only has he embarrassed this administration, his trusted friend and mentor, Rudy, he also now has to answer to the wacky media who will/have dug up dirt which now has no bearing on his current job in the private sector.
His accomplishments will now be tarnished as a result of this lynching and all this could have been avoided if he just said "THANKS, but NO THANKS!"
It is true that Kerik should have said no thanks, but the president should have known the information before he recommended him for the job. It is not as though any of this information was hard to find.
Revel - HOW should the Admin have know. They ask questions and someone lies.
I guess it's the ol' "tainted information" that got you again, eh, woo-woo?
America feels your pain!
(Now, if only your peeps could learn to avoid tainted sources...)
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:For those of you who believe that the Kerik situation reveals a screening failure on the part of the BUsh Administration, please explain how the administration might have, otherwise, done a "proper" job of vetting.
Do you mean to suggest that the administration should hire private dicks to investigate potential cabinet members?
Since they obviously approve of the spending of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to ascertain that a sitting president is getting his knob polished....... sure why not? Cheaper....... :wink:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace