Man-Made Disaster

The Department of Homeland Security was a bureaucratic and philosophical mistake. Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Derek Hawkins - Dec 15, 2008 - 11:27 PM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Derek Hawkins - Dec 15, 2008 - 11:27 PM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Derek Hawkins
4.1
by Derek Hawkins - Dec. 15, 2008
See Full Review » (10 answers)
George Blahusiak
1.9
by George Blahusiak - Dec. 16, 2008

A disaster yes, but the reasons not given. Wste of time, posibly the whole article oriented towards promoting bigger budgets for DHS

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Kenneth Sibbett
4.1
by Kenneth Sibbett - Dec. 16, 2008

The writer told all sides of the story very well, did great research, and had some one-on-one's with Chertoff. What more could you want.

Bravo! The DHF was get people calm knee-jerk of an idea that was doomed to fail. In the long history of our security institutions, name one that had a history of working together. They fight over territory like pit-bulls on a postal worker. They have 22 separate Federal agencies working out of 70 buildings, at 40 locations. How could you even direct who was to clean what buildings at what time and what location? A logistical nightmare. What we needed was all agencies working ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Ron Pulcini
4.5
by Ron Pulcini - Dec. 16, 2008

Jeff Rosen's article reads like a classy judicial review: His opinion (of the DHS) and argument (that DHS's existence be reconsidered) are forthright and sensible. Rosen's logical analysis (including back room antecedents of the DHS), help us to understand the subtle psychology involved in the public's perceptions of whether the agency is effective or not — which, of course, begs the main question. Unless Rosen's choice of Chertoff quotes was restricted (to those only which bolstered his argument), it appears that even the man in charge is tepid about DHS's raison d'étre. Good point using the Tet Offensive as well as citing cost benefit analysis of the agency's efficacy vis-a-vis auto safety — the ol' perception problem ... More »

The haunting, seldom discussed question about large scale terrorist threats — a la the four hijacked "armed missiles" is: Was Mohamed Atta and his cohorts simply lucky on 9/11? Has anyone compared that day to the "Day of Infamy"? In the sense of "cultural blindness": Japanese people attacking the US? Never! Arabs carrying out a daring raid on one of America's symbols of capitalism? Never! If you cannot imagine something being possible, how can you prepare for it?

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.7

Good
from 5 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.7
Facts
3.6
Fairness
3.6
Information
4.0
Sourcing
3.5
Style
4.0
Context
4.0
Depth
4.5
Enterprise
3.5
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
4.2
Credibility
3.5
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!