[« Trivia Answers] [Thought for the Day: »]
02/23/2005: Puppy Dog's Tails?
Paul Krugman (NY Times) Has a an excellent piece Wag-The Dog Protection about the utter lack of seriousness and efforts of this Administration to do what is necessary, spend what is necessary, block all leaks, fill all gaps, cover all holes in our National Security flaws.
Krugman writes:
"Consider, for example, the case of chemical plants.
Just days after 9/11, many analysts identified sites that store toxic chemicals as a major terror risk, and called for new safety rules. But as The New York Times reported last fall, "after the oil and chemical industries met with Karl Rove ... the White House quietly blocked those efforts."
Nearly three and a half years after 9/11, those chemical plants are still unprotected.
Other major risks identified within days of the attack included the possibility of terrorist attacks on major ports or nuclear plants. But in the months after 9/11, the administration flatly refused to allocate the sums that members of the House and Senate from both parties thought necessary to secure these sites.
And when the administration does spend money protecting possible terrorist targets, politics, not national security, dictates where the money goes. Remember the "first responders" program that ended up spending seven times as much protecting each resident of Wyoming as it spent protecting each resident of New York?
Well, it's still happening. An audit of the Homeland Security Department's (greatly inadequate) program to protect ports found that much of the money went to unlikely locations, including six sites in landlocked Arkansas, where the department's recently resigned chief of border and transportation security is reported to be considering a run for governor."
Karen on 02.23.05 @ 06:23 AM CST
