| | |  Editorials | September 2008 
Not Safe Enough
 New York Times
go to original
 |  | Seven years after 9/11, we hoped that the government would earn more than a "C" on its ability to protect Americans from potentially catastrophic attacks. The next president will have to do better. |  | | | |
We could not agree more strongly with President Bush that this country must do everything it can to keep weapons of mass destruction out of terrorists’ hands.
If this truly reflects his thinking — and he has said it often — why does the United States government get only a "C" grade from a respected, bipartisan group of national security experts for its efforts to prevent nuclear, chemical and biological terrorism? The new report says the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency, focus or follow-through.
In 2005, a group headed by former Representative Lee Hamilton and former Gov. Thomas Kean of New Jersey — the chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — gave the government a "D" for its efforts to prevent the spread of weapons and protect the homeland. Now, a successor group headed by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Kean plus former Senator Warren Rudman finds the country’s efforts still dangerously weak.
The report says there is no comprehensive strategy that links all programs intended to stop the spread of such weapons and sets priorities for funding. The authors warn that the administration’s mistrust of international institutions and treaties has seriously harmed its ability to work with other countries to curb such threats.
Efforts to prevent biological terrorism get the lowest rating — "C-minus." Even inside the United States, authorities do not know the number and location of an expanding array of laboratories doing research with potentially dangerous viruses. Clearly, an accurate census of such facilities is imperative. On nuclear weapons, the report gives the government a "C." Washington has done much to improve security at Russian nuclear sites, but there is still no overall government plan to secure all dangerous nuclear material around the world.
The report gives the highest marks — "B-minus" — for efforts to combat chemical weapons, noting that effective controls for chemical warfare agents have been put in place. But Washington must speed destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile and improve security at chemical plants.
The administration is credited with some important successes, notably persuading Libya to abandon its weapons programs and ensuring that 90 percent of all ship cargo is now screened before it enters the country. But seven years after 9/11, we hoped that the government would earn more than a "C" on its ability to protect Americans from potentially catastrophic attacks. The next president will have to do better. |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us