December 27, 2005

Chemical imbalance

Speaking of keeping America safe, today's New York Times criticizes the fact that, more than four years after 9/11, our nation's chemical plants are still nakedly vulnerable to attack. The Times notes:
If terrorists attacked a chemical plant, the death toll could be enormous. A single breached chlorine tank could, according to the Department of Homeland Security, lead to 17,500 deaths, 10,000 severe injuries and 100,000 hospitalizations. Many chemical plants have shockingly little security to defend against such attacks.

After 9/11, there were immediate calls for the government to impose new security requirements on these plants. But the chemical industry, which contributes heavily to political campaigns, has used its influence in Washington to block these efforts.
It is inexcusable that a President who relentlessly contends that he is doing everything in his power to protect American citizens, has done nothing to address the WMD's already existing throughout the nation. Instead, he dedicates his efforts to defending torture, illegal eavesdropping, and an unnecessary war thousands of miles away, while shamelessly capitulating to special interest groups and big money donors.

Feeling safer now, America?

^return to top

2 Comments:

Anonymous Chris said...

Although I agree with your premise (and political leaning), I can't help but say that people who are worried about every chemical plant and water reservoir are missing the point. At what point does the government just say that everyone in the country needs to be under permanent curfew to keep them safe? Or that there should be no videogames because some violent games are too easy to access by children? The price of freedom is vigilance, but too much vigilance costs invaluable freedoms.

27 December, 2005 14:34  
Blogger Xanthippas said...

I wouldn't say they're quite missing the point. I do agree that it's entirely impossible to fully protect every chemical and water plant in the country from a determined terrorist attack. The problem is the Bush administration seems callously unconcerned with providing even a minimum protection to them, which demonstrates the degree to which they themselves are willing to sacrifice their "war on terror" if buddies in the industry opppose the added expense or hassle. To me that demonstrates the Bush administrations essential unseriousness about the "war on terror" despite what all they say, and I think that's the real lesson you should get out of the article.

Overall I agree with you though that is impossible to protect ourselves fully without sacrificing all or nearly all of our essential liberties. That's a proposition I am 100% opposed to.

27 December, 2005 18:26  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 


^return to index ^return to top

 
Google
search Google search The Hue and Cry search WWW