Director of Homeland Security worried about campaign rhetoric
Bloomberg’s Jeff Bliss has a story about Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warning that, “Terrorists may see the change to a new U.S. president over the next six months as a prime chance to attack.” That’s unsurprising but important news. I think Bliss buried his lede, however: [H]e’s concerned about the effect of rhetoric from some hate ...
Bloomberg's Jeff Bliss has a story about Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warning that, "Terrorists may see the change to a new U.S. president over the next six months as a prime chance to attack." That's unsurprising but important news. I think Bliss buried his lede, however: [H]e's concerned about the effect of rhetoric from some hate groups or individuals during the campaign. "There's a general level of intemperateness in the discussion as we approach the election,'' he said. ``Do I worry that it could trigger in a disturbed individual a desire to do something? Absolutely, I worry about it.'' (emphasis added). Gee, whichever campaign could Chertoff be talking about? [UPDATE: Ross Douthat points out that Chertoff should also be concerned about campaign artwork.] And before all the Obama supporters get all giddy about this, let me add that I have some decidedly mixed feelings about this statement comming from the head of DHS. Here's my question: in what way is Chertoff's statement here different from the much-lambasted Ari Fleischer statement that, "Americans... need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."? (on the disputed meaning of Fleischer's remarks, click here and here.) To be fair to Chertoff, this is a quote from a reporter -- I'd like to know everything he said on this question. I guess my point is, that Chertoff might want to follow Fleischer's advice. UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, this video suggests how the McCain campaign should be handling this sort of problem.
Bloomberg’s Jeff Bliss has a story about Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warning that, “Terrorists may see the change to a new U.S. president over the next six months as a prime chance to attack.” That’s unsurprising but important news. I think Bliss buried his lede, however:
[H]e’s concerned about the effect of rhetoric from some hate groups or individuals during the campaign. “There’s a general level of intemperateness in the discussion as we approach the election,” he said. “Do I worry that it could trigger in a disturbed individual a desire to do something? Absolutely, I worry about it.” (emphasis added).
Gee, whichever campaign could Chertoff be talking about? [UPDATE: Ross Douthat points out that Chertoff should also be concerned about campaign artwork.] And before all the Obama supporters get all giddy about this, let me add that I have some decidedly mixed feelings about this statement comming from the head of DHS. Here’s my question: in what way is Chertoff’s statement here different from the much-lambasted Ari Fleischer statement that, “Americans… need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.”? (on the disputed meaning of Fleischer’s remarks, click here and here.) To be fair to Chertoff, this is a quote from a reporter — I’d like to know everything he said on this question. I guess my point is, that Chertoff might want to follow Fleischer’s advice. UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, this video suggests how the McCain campaign should be handling this sort of problem.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
