When they emerged from an hourlong meeting the other day, the governors of New York and New Jersey, the mayor of New York City and the nation's Homeland Security boss said they had discussed the growing threat of global terrorism and promised a thorough review of local security measures.
In truth, the meeting must have skipped classified details because one of the participants, Mayor de Blasio, is not allowed to know them.
Day by day, the question of why de Blasio does not have federal security clearance grows more curious. Elected in November, his office insists he didn't bother to apply until Post reporter Tara Palmeri broke the shocking news last week.
This is mind-boggling. The top official of the city that suffered the nation's worst terror attack ever and remains the No. 1 target of jihadists is, by law, out of the loop on classified intelligence and many counterterrorism measures.
And as Palmeri subsequently reported, nobody in de Blasio's City Hall has such clearance. Only some police officials, including top cop Bill Bratton, have passed the background checks that are required to get access to material stamped with any of the various "classified" restrictions.
Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg passed the security test so they could access classified intelligence, as did their police commissioners and others in their administrations. Yet de Blasio apparently never gave the issue any attention.
Or maybe he did, and that's why he didn't apply earlier.
Consider this an informed theory, one that begins with de Blasio's 1994 honeymoon in Cuba. It was illegal for Americans to make private visits to the Communist nation then without Washington's permission, so de Blasio and wife Chirlane McCray went first to Canada, then to Fidel Castro's island prison. We know this because de Blasio's daughter said during last year's campaign that her parents had hidden the trip from their children, but that she had just learned about it.
My guess is that the trip came up in research de Blasio's own campaign was doing on him, a standard political practice to learn any dirty secrets the other side could exploit.
Whatever the source, de Blasio confessed to the trip, made a joke about honeymoon privacy and accused his Republican opponent, Joe Lhota, of being "divisive" for even mentioning it.
Clever, but incomplete. The Cuba trip would have been relevant to de Blasio's 1997 appointment as regional director of HUD, the federal housing agency. To get that job, he would need to answer a series of detailed personal questions aimed at uncovering any facts that would make him a security risk or unfit for public trust.
One of those questions would go like this: "List foreign countries you have visited during the past seven (7) years."
Assuming he did not have a federal license for the visit, listing the 1994 trip to Cuba would have done more than raise a red flag. It might well have disqualified him from getting the job.
So maybe de Blasio didn't mention Cuba, but, legally, that wasn't an option. Most government background forms require the applicant to swear that all answers are "true, complete and correct." To those tempted to shade the truth or omit critical facts, there is a warning that "a knowing and willful false statement on this form can be punished by fine or imprisonment or both."
New Yorkers deserve to know the truth of his answers because they are relevant to his job as mayor.
With the Islamic State recruiting Americans, and al Qaeda-like groups spreading throughout the world, a mayor's basic duty now includes keeping the city safe from terrorists. Because de Blasio does not fully know what other officials know, and cannot fully participate in planning, deployments and other key decisions, then the city is, by some margin, less safe than it could be.
Although clearance barriers recede during an actual emergency, the mayor's handicap before then is not tolerable in this bloody era.
The bottom line: de Blasio must explain why he has been so lax about applying for security clearance. And he must release his 1997 HUD background forms, or authorize the government to do so.
Anything less will add to the already-considerable concerns about his commitment to public safety.
Fat chance Gilly will rat out em
Regarding New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's claim that another senator told her she was too fat to win election after giving birth, we can be certain the oaf is a fellow Democrat. Otherwise, she would have named him.
But outing a sexist in her own party would have negated the Dems' "war on women" charge against Republicans, so Gillibrand chose shameful silence. Add her name to those who put party ahead of principle.
Stiff upper lip, whatever-your-name-is
The possibility that Scotland will dissolve its union with Great Britain gives rise to a guessing game about the former empire: Would Britain still be called Great?
It could change its name to Little Britain.
Or The Britain Formerly Known As Great.
My favorite: We Still Got Wales!
Bam's wuss & boots plan
The admission by Pentagon brass yesterday that the campaign against the Islamic State might require American boots on the ground after all would be the stuff of high comedy in another setting. But the contradiction of President Obama's repeated vow that he would not send combat troops back to Iraq proved again that, even in year six, it's still amateur hour at this White House.
Is it a war? One day the answer is no, the next day it's yes.
Are we trying to work with Iran? One day the answer is no, the next day it is yes—and no.
How many allies do we have? Oh, as many as 26, though it turns out that only some, or maybe none, actually promised military participation.
This is no way to win a war.
While it was obvious Obama's speech was more about saving his presidency than defeating the enemy, simple consistency in public statements shouldn't be asking too much.
But it took only routine questions by the Senate Armed Services panel to get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, to say he would push for combat troops if the initial plan didn't succeed. Surprisingly, he said Obama invited him to make such pleas "on a case-by-case basis."
From a military man, that's the right answer. But it flat-out contradicts what Obama promised last week when he said: "American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq."
The lack of coherence undercuts the appeal to potential allies, and emboldens our adversaries. Already Russia and Iran opposed strikes in their shared client state of Syria, which could help explain why Arab nations are ducking commitments.
America's military has no equal. But even the best fighting force in the world cannot substitute for a president who is ambivalent about the mission.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
De Blasio must explain why he did not apply for security clearance
Dengan url
http://susuvirus.blogspot.com/2014/09/de-blasio-must-explain-why-he-did-not.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
De Blasio must explain why he did not apply for security clearance
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
De Blasio must explain why he did not apply for security clearance
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar