×

National security at stake

KAREN ELIAS

Lock Haven

In the 1990s Michael Chertoff, a lifelong Republican, led the investigation into Bill and Hillary Clintons’ land-deal known as Whitewater, serving as the special counsel for the Senate Whitewater Committee.

Remarkably, in a month Chertoff will be voting for Hillary for President.

In a recent interview, Chertoff (who served as Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009) cites the events of 9/11, which moved us from a world at peace to a world at war, as instrumental in his own transformation.

Looking back on the events of that day refocused his priorities on the larger picture: “I realized that in the ’90s we spent an enormous amount of time pursuing issues involving the Clintons’ associations back in Arkansas in the ’80s, Whitewater and other things, and we didn’t spend nearly the same amount of time on what bin Laden was up to . . . . And it reminded me that . . . the ability to spend an inordinate amount of time chasing small peccadilloes is a luxury we only have in a world at peace. In a world at war, you’ve got to focus on the top priority which is protecting the United States and protecting our friends and allies.”

His time spent working with Clinton when she was a senator and he was Secretary of Homeland Security gained her his respect.

“She exhibited good understanding of what the issues and challenges were, to be steady in terms of her approach and also interested in educating herself. And I generally found her to have good judgment.”

In a time when, as Chertoff says, “our challenges to security are perhaps more acute than at any time since September 11th,” we need a president who is both steady and well-informed. “I think, in terms of national security, she’s going to do a good job protecting this country.”

When asked about her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state, Chertoff replied that it was a mistake that occurred during a time when less sophisticated technology made it difficult to separate private and official business on the same device; “she did not intentionally endanger national security.”

A Trump presidency, on the other hand, according to Chertoff, would indeed endanger us. There’s no telling what a candidate who insists on defending himself by pressing the Twitter button in the middle of the night might do with access to our nuclear codes.

“Not only did he seem at the debate to lose his temper,” Chertoff said, “but to get up at 3:30 a.m. and reach for your smartphone is to me a hysterical reaction.”

Chertoff, along with a group of 50 Republican former national security officials, signed an open letter in August stating that Trump would make “the most reckless president in American history” and that he “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

All the time and money spent on “chasing small peccadilloes,” slandering Clinton and attempting to undermine her credibility has served as a dangerous distraction from our more important concerns. If we, like Chertoff, believe that national security is one of the top issues in this election, then our choice is clear.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $3.69/week.

Subscribe Today