Bernard Kerik - New Thug In-Chief

[Ennis Snavely]

What a nutjob...didn't Stalin start out like this?


The "Terminator" of Baghdad
Well-placed friends must have figured heavily in the choice of Bernard Kerik as the new director of homeland security -- it certainly can't be his experience.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal



Dec. 9, 2004 | In the legend of the war on terrorism, Bernard Kerik, with his trademark shaved head, bristling mustache and black belt in karate, occupies a special place as rough-and-ready hero. Having risen from military policeman to narcotics detective to New York police commissioner, he finds himself on the fateful Sept. 11, 2001, shoulder to shoulder with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani. As the towers crumble the mayor confides in his buddy, as Giuliani recalled in his speech to the Republican National Convention: "Bernie, thank God George Bush is president." After the invasion of Iraq, Bush assigns Kerik to train the new Iraqi security forces. Mission accomplished, he returns to Giuliani Partners LLC and becomes motivational speaker to captains of industry, his net worth skyrocketing into the millions of dollars. One of his most notable aphorisms: "Political criticism is our enemies' best friend."

Kerik, the decorated detective, leads an investigation into the safety of cheaper Canadian prescription drugs and accompanies Giuliani to his appearance before the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, where he testifies on their danger. (Kerik and Giuliani are rewarded handsomely by their client, the U.S. pharmaceutical drug lobby.) After John Kerry closes the gap in the presidential debates, Kerik rushes to the rescue, ominously warning of terrorist attacks: "If you put Senator Kerry in the White House, I think you are going to see that happen ... and I don't want to see another 9/11." At last, having pledged to keep America "safer," Bush announces Kerik, rags-to-riches personification of post-9/11 resolve, as the new secretary of homeland security. The legend lives on.

The Department of Homeland Security is a bureaucratic Byzantium consisting of 22 agencies with a budget exceeding $40 billion. Its current secretary, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, has made it best known for his announcement of color-coded terrorist alerts and his call to citizens to wrap their houses with plastic and duct tape. The department's notorious dysfunction prompted a devastating analysis by expert Stephen E. Flynn in this fall's Foreign Affairs: "The transportation, energy, information, financial, chemical, food, and logistical networks that underpin U.S. economic power and the American way of life offer the United States' enemies a rich menu of irresistible targets. And most of these remain virtually unprotected."

The department's creation was first proposed in the report of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, commissioned by President Clinton and delivered to President Bush. "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely," it warned. Like the pre-9/11 alarms by the CIA and the National Security Council's former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, this was studiously ignored by the Bush administration, which had dismissed terrorism as a "soft" issue, a "Clinton thing."

After 9/11, Senate Democrats proposed a new department, which Bush initially resisted. Then he offered his own version that would deny labor union recognition to workers. In the midterm elections of 2002, Bush declared that the Democrats were "not interested in the security of the American people." Republican TV commercials morphed the faces of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Democratic senators into one another -- and the Republicans captured the Senate.

Kerik's appointment was suggested to Bush by Giuliani. With this favor, Kerik's meteoric career has reached its zenith. The son of a prostitute, high school dropout Kerik fathered an illegitimate daughter in Korea whom he refused to acknowledge and support. He was a bodyguard for members of the Saudi royal family and then became a New York narcotics cop. In 1993, he was tapped as Giuliani's chauffeur and bodyguard. It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Giuliani made Kerik deputy police commissioner and chief of the Corrections Department, a Republican patronage dump. One million dollars in taxpayer money used to buy tobacco for inmates disappeared into a private foundation run by Kerik without any accounting. In 2000, Giuliani leapfrogged Kerik over many more qualified candidates to appoint him police commissioner.

Kerik's coordination of command and control on 9/11 was excoriated as "not worthy of the Boy Scouts ... a scandal" by John Lehman, the conservative Republican member of the 9/11 commission.

After 9/11 Kerik spent much of his time writing a self-promoting autobiography, "The Lost Son." The city's Conflict of Interest Board eventually fined him $2,500 for using three policemen to conduct his research. Kerik developed a close relationship with his publisher, Judith Regan, of Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins. When she told him her cellphone was missing after a TV appearance on Fox News, Kerik sent detectives in the middle of the night to question the TV employees. It turned out Regan had simply misplaced the phone. Kerik made her an honorary police commissioner.

Dispatched to Iraq to whip Iraqi security forces into shape, Kerik dubbed himself the "interim interior minister of Iraq." British police advisors called him the "Baghdad terminator," and reported that his reckless bullying was alienating Iraqis. "I will be there at least six months -- until the job is done," he said. He left after three.

In waging bureaucratic battles among complex organizations and players, Kerik has less experience in Washington than he had in Baghdad. He cannot be expected to change the funding formula determined by Bush's political calculations to favor interior Republican states -- more per capita to Montana than to New York. And, undoubtedly, many of those seeking the department's lucrative contracts will be signing up as clients of Giuliani Partners. The looting of Washington, unlike post-invasion Iraq, is legal.

In line with other second-term Cabinet appointments -- Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state -- Kerik will be an enforcer, a loyalist and an incompetent. In the made-for-TV version of the Bush administration he plays Kojak; in the true-life version he would be played by Peter Sellers. He is a deadpan caricature of a parody. Now the body man becomes the body. The resemblance is less to Inspector Clouseau or Chauncey Gardiner than to Caligula's horse.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column for Salon and the Guardian of London.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

There was a very long article concerning Kerik's time in Saudi Arabia. According to the article, Kerik was in charge of security at a hospital that catered to the Saudi royalty, it did not mention him as a bodyguard. His main duities were to make sure that Western employees obeyed saudi restrictions on gender fraternization and alcohol use. The most of former employees that were quoted in the artcle described him as a goon. The administrator of the hospital did not like male employees dating female employees that he apparently had his eyes on for himself. Kerik was his psy and enforcer. Eventually, the adminstrator (a Saudi) was fired over abuses during his term and Kerik was kicked out of the country.

[Ennis Snavely]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

There was a very long article concerning Kerik's time in Saudi Arabia. According to the article, Kerik was in charge of security at a hospital that catered to the Saudi royalty, it did not mention him as a bodyguard. His main duities were to make sure that Western employees obeyed saudi restrictions on gender fraternization and alcohol use. The most of former employees that were quoted in the artcle described him as a goon. The administrator of the hospital did not like male employees dating female employees that he apparently had his eyes on for himself. Kerik was his psy and enforcer. Eventually, the adminstrator (a Saudi) was fired over abuses during his term and Kerik was kicked out of the country.

My bet is that those lame-ass Democrats in the Senate won't do shit about any of this.

[BFrank]

See this thread:
http://www.jazzcornertalk.com/speake...ead.php?t=8723

[Ennis Snavely]

Media goes weak-kneed for tough-guy Kerik
As he sails toward confirmation as Bush's new homeland security chief, Bernard Kerik's ugly attack on John Kerry has been conveniently forgotten.

By Eric Boehlert

Dec. 9, 2004 | The media has been chattering excitedly away ever since President Bush appointed New York tough-guy Bernard Kerik as the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik's rapid, and unlikely, rise from beat cop to Cabinet-level appointee has kept Beltway journalists busy sketching Kerik's life story, one so colorful it was recently optioned by Miramax for an upcoming biopic. Despite his relatively brief, 16-month tenure as New York City police commissioner, which included surveying the World Trade Center wreckage at the side of then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Kerik has successfully positioned himself a top anti-terror guard dog.

With Kerik's confirmation as homeland security chief all but assured on Capitol Hill, the media has fallen dutifully in line, offering almost uniformly glowing coverage -- except for the odd mention of the opportunism charges that have surrounded Kerik since his days as Giuliani's chauffeur, and brief reminders of his failed, abbreviated attempt last year to train Iraqi police officers.

But there's one telling item from Kerik’s past that has been conveniently left out of the coverage, much to his relief no doubt, as he tries to display some semblance of bipartisanship during his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. And that was Kerik's head-swiveling attack on Sen. John Kerry during the campaign last spring, when he suggested that if the Democrat were elected president, the country would practically invite another deadly terrorist strike. It was the same blunt line of attack ("Democrats = mass death") that Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, honed during the closing months of the campaign. But Kerik was the first prominent Republican to make the charge, telling the New York Daily News on April 22, "If you put Sen. Kerry in the White House, I think you are going to see that happen." (Months later Kerik claimed the Daily News had misquoted him, but he never requested a correction.)

In late July Kerik modified his stance slightly, telling CNN that a Kerry presidency would not necessarily invite another terrorist attack, but the Democrat would be weak in dealing with one if it came: "I fear another attack, and I fear that attack with a John Kerry, Senator Kerry, being in office responding to it."

Yet, with Kerik headed for a Cabinet post, his ugly attack on the Democratic nominee has slipped right down the memory hole. To date, according to a search of the Nexis electronic database, only two news organizations have reprinted Kerik's shot at Kerry: USA Today and the New York Times. Not even the New York Daily News has bothered to remind readers of their earlier story.

Instead, the press, adhering to its Bush-era tendency of playing nice with hardball-loving Republicans, describes Kerik's vicious partisan streak in the nicest possible way. On National Public Radio, Kerik was described merely as "a strong supporter of President Bush in the presidential campaign this year."

On Dec. 2, the Cox News Service described Kerik as "a solid Bush backer who took to the presidential campaign trail earlier this year to defend the administration's record against attacks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., that Bush hadn't done enough to safeguard the country against future attacks."

Two days later the New York Post's Vincent Morris penned almost the exact same description: "Kerik was a strong supporter of Bush during the re-election campaign, defending the president from charges by Democratic challenger John Kerry that Bush had failed on many fronts to adequately protect the country against new attacks."

Part of the reason the press has taken a pass on Kerik's hatchet past may be that Democrats themselves have failed to make an issue out of it. The opposition party's ingratiating tone has been set by New York's two Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton. No doubt anxious to keep Homeland Security's spending spigots open and flowing in their state's direction in coming years, Schumer and Clinton have both hailed the choice of Kerik, the hometown cop. Still, that's no excuse for journalists to look the other way and ignore the fact that Bush's choice for the Homeland Security position was willing to say whatever it took to get a Republican elected president – and perhaps to get himself a Cabinet appointment.

About the writer
Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Ennis Snavely

My bet is that those lame-ass Democrats in the Senate won't do shit about any of this.

Both Senators from New York are ga-ga with praise for The Commish. He'll be confirmed with ease.

[willy]

Hillary will do ANYTHING to be President, even if it means abandoning her liberal agenda for a while in hopes of fooling the people.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Both Senators from New York are ga-ga with praise for The Commish. He'll be confirmed with ease.

You are right. Some people just like to be 100% negative towards Bush. You'd think some Bush haters would say that Kerik is an improvement on Ashcroft and be happy that the change was made.

Willy, Hillary's no worse than other politicians who run for President. She knows that in the post 9-11 world she has to come across as a President that the American people will trust to deal with our enemies in a dangerous world. If she is nominated, she'll be dealing with a better deck than Kerry did because there will be no incumbent or even semi-incumbent (e.g. sitting VP). 2008 will be the first race since 1952 where there is no incumbent Pres or VP running for President. If you exempt Ike, the bigger than life war hero, you have to go back to Herbert Hoover.

The Republicans want Hillary to win but she will regain the security moms who defected to Bush in 2004.

[Gary Sisco]

Hillary likes to rub his head.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

You are right. Some people just like to be 100% negative towards Bush. You'd think some Bush haters would say that Kerik is an improvement on Ashcroft and be happy that the change was made.

Huh?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gordon,

I have one question. Where in Mr. Kerik resume is it suggested he has the qualifications to run an agency of 180,000 people? I don't care about his politics, but I do care about his qualifications.

Personally, I think this appointment shows how important the department is to Bush. He hasn't appointed a serious player to it yet. Remember, he didn't want the agency created in the first place.

And I Kerik's he's replacing Tom Ridge. Not Ashcroft. Ashcroft's being replaced by the cat who thinks torture is legal.

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, but he makes "Hillary" hot.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Again my bad. I forgot it's all about Hillary.

[Ennis Snavely]

I'm struck by how this guy went from Giuliani 's bodyguard/chauffer to being the head of domestic security within the space of ten years. It certainly looks like the typical job track for a despot. Shades of Saddam, Putin, take your pick. A street thug attains political power under the sponsorship of other thugs (in this case, pencil-necked thug-wannabees like Rudy and Dubya). And Darryl is right; this shows Bush's priorities. He's more concerned with loyalty than getting things done right.

Willy is right too, unfortunately; Hillary Clinton is a fucking phony and one of the reasons that the Dems are so lame. We need people who are willing to stand up to Bush when it counts for us, not just when it is politically expedient for them. Of course Willy and others don't seem to be concerned that Bush has appointed an unqualified political hack with a background of criminality to be the head of domestic security.

And Giuliani's saying that "Thank God for George Bush" as the towers fell sounds like total unadulterated bullshit to me. Give me a break!

[Ennis Snavely]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Yeah, but he makes "Hillary" hot.

I'd like to see photos of her pegging that bullet-headed fuck. I'd pay good money for that, especially if she sicks it in his mouth when she's done.

Man. That's nasty!

[Gary Sisco]

Maybe he made Rudy hot.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Actually Kerik's rise reminds me of Alexander Haig's. He went from a full bird colonel to NATO commander in about 5 years or something like that thanks to having his head up Kissinger's ass in the Nixon White House.

Come to think about it, Nixon's White House is sort of running things now, Cheney and Rummy were players back then.

Tricky Dick, the gift that just keeps on giving.

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Gordon,

I have one question. Where in Mr. Kerik resume is it suggested he has the qualifications to run an agency of 180,000 people? I don't care about his politics, but I do care about his qualifications.

Personally, I think this appointment shows how important the department is to Bush. He hasn't appointed a serious player to it yet. Remember, he didn't want the agency created in the first place.

These are my thoughts, exactly. What's the deal with this guy except that he's a GOP flack, employed by Giuliani's company? Where's his experience?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by BFrank

These are my thoughts, exactly. What's the deal with this guy except that he's a GOP flack, employed by Giuliani's company? Where's his experience?

All discussion of Kerik is now moot. He withdrew from consideration tonight, for "personal reasons." Drudge says he has a nanny problem. ABC News didn't mention it in their news story tonight.

[tippy]

I saw it on Fox about 10 minutes ago. If the guy can't even handle his nanny, it's good he's stepping down.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

All discussion of Kerik is now moot. He withdrew from consideration tonight, for "personal reasons." Drudge says he has a nanny problem. ABC News didn't mention it in their news story tonight.

Aaron Brown just confirmed it's Nannygate. Who was the Clinton appointee who had to withdraw for the same reason?

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by tippy

I saw it on Fox about 10 minutes ago. If the guy can't even handle his nanny, it's good he's stepping down.

What are you doing watching Fox?

[Pete C]

Zoë Baird

[tippy]

Lani what's her face or something.

channel flipping, pete not that there was anything worth watching on any channel really. Saw two reports on an interesting Amish story however. Everybody knows New Yorkers don't pay their nannies on the books...I don't really see what the problem is when everybody does it.

[Ennis Snavely]

Best news I've had in a month. The sad thing is that it took something relatively minor to take him down. Shades of Linda Chavez...

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by tippy

Lani what's her face or something.

No, Lani Guinier (sp?) had a problem with her paper trail. It was Zoe Baird, and further research reveals it was also Kimba Woods.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by tippy

I don't really see what the problem is when everybody does it.

So, if everybody ignores the law it's not a problem--not because the law is wrong, but because everybody ignores it? Sort of like if everybody communicates poorly, there's no communication problem?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Pete C

No, Lani Guinier (sp?) had a problem with her paper trail. It was Zoe Baird, and further research reveals it was also Kimba Woods.

Kimba Wood, no "s." Yes, Linda Chavez also had a nannygate problem. I would bet that under 1% of nanny have taxes withheld in the U.S.

Ennis Snavely, why is it good news? You think you'll like Bush's next choice better than Kerik?

Originally Posted by Pete C

So, if everybody ignores the law it's not a problem--not because the law is wrong, but because everybody ignores it? Sort of like if everybody communicates poorly, there's no communication problem?

Absolutely.

Ignore it, and it will eventually go away.

[tippy]

it's only poor communication if you don't understand what the other person is saying--not if they didn't say it like you wanted them to or think they should. That's the difference.

And no I don't think households should have to pay taxes on their hired help, it's too complicated.