On Apr 24, 6:59=A0am, Clay <ClaysRi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> by Clifford D. May
> National Review
>
> April 24, 2008
>
> The next time Islamist terrorists attack us it could be with a nuclear
> weapon... Graham Allison is a Harvard professor who served with
> distinction in the Defense Department under Presidents Reagan and
> Clinton. He wrote a book in 2004 arguing that =93on the current course,
> nuclear terrorism is inevitable.=94
>
> There has been no change of course since =97 quite the contrary. Ashton
> B. Carter, co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard,
> said recently that the threat of nuclear terrorism has been increasing
> due to Iranian and North Korean proliferation and the failure to
> secure Russia=92s nuclear arsenal following the Cold War. The
> probability of a nuclear attack on an American city, he believes, is
> now =93almost surely larger than it was five years ago.=94
>
> Gary Anthony Ackerman, research director of the National Consortium
> for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, also recently
> told Congress that =93the prospect of terrorists detonating a nuclear
> device on American soil sometime within the next quarter-century is
> real and growing.=94
>
> And Cham D. Dallas, who directs the Institute for Health Management
> and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia, says
> flatly: =93It=92s inevitable.=94 Testifying before a Senate hearing this
> month, he added: =93I think it=92s wistful to think that it won=92t
happen=
> by 20 years.=94
>
> Should a ten-kiloton nuclear bomb explode near the White House, Dallas
> estimates that 100,000 people would be killed. A radioactive plume
> would lethally contaminate thousands more. In a densely populated city
> such as New York or Chicago, a similar blast would result in a death
> toll perhaps eight times that high.
>
> Charles Allen, undersecretary for intelligence and analysis for the
> Department of Homeland Security, has said there is no question that
> Islamist terrorist groups are seeking nuclear materials. But the
> intelligence community, he added, is =93less certain about terrorists=92
> capability to acquire or develop a nuclear device.=94
>
> Could the intelligence community be more certain? Yes, our spies could
> do more to increase our chances of detecting =97 and preventing =97
> terrorist attacks of all varieties. But they are being denied the
> tools. The most notable example: The law that gave America=92s
> intelligence agencies the authority to freely monitor the
> communications of foreign terrorists abroad expired in February.
>
> A bill to restore that authority passed the Senate by a solidly
> bipartisan 68-to-29 majority. A bipartisan majority in the House would
> almost certainly vote in favor of the same measure but Speaker Nancy
> Pelosi =97 for more than two months =97 has used the power of her office
> to stop members from casting their votes yea or nay.
>
> Why would she do something so irresponsible?
Because the Democrats are MORONS.
They believe that freedom of speech =3D freedom to own cell phones.
They believe that freedom of the press =3D freedom to own nuclear
reactors.
They believe that freedom of religion is unproven by evolution, so
is to
be absorbed into the Big Bang machine.
That believe that guns, computers, satellites, GPS, robots, RPGs,
tasers, and lasers really care what morons from
The War of Roses think.
Groups on the Left,
> im****tant to the Democrats in this election season, demand that
> foreign terrorists abroad be given the same privacy protections
> enjoyed by American citizens here at home.
>
> This policy may already have cost American lives. In at least one
> instance, U.S. officials labored for nearly ten hours to get legal
> approval necessary to conduct wiretaps to help them locate three
> American soldiers kidnapped by al-Qaeda combatants in Iraq. The
> soldiers were not successfully rescued.
>
> =93We are extending Fourth Amendment (constitutional) rights to a
> terrorist foreigner . . . who=92s captured a U.S. soldier,=94 Director
of
> National Intelligence Michael McConnell complained to a congressional
> committee during a legislative battle over this same issue last year.
>
> Also in the mix: Trial lawyers are suing telecommunications companies
> that cooperated with intelligence officials immediately after 9/11,
> allowing them to =93mine=94 data for patterns of terrorist activity. If
> the trial lawyers =97 the biggest donors to Democrats =97 succeed, they
> will reap billions of dollars. They also will teach the private sector
> never again to assist government efforts to identify terrorists. The
> Senate bill would protect the telecoms from these laws suits.
>
> Almost two dozen moderate Democratic House members sent Pelosi a
> letter saying that until this measure is passed, America=92s national
> security will be =93at undue risk.=94 But that was months ago. Since
then,=
> with few exceptions, Democrats have been keeping their mouths shut.
>
> Is worrying about nuclear terrorism fear mongering? After the
> suicide-bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and
> again after the truck-bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, most
> politicians exhibited not fear but complacency. They did nothing
> serious to anticipate or avert the next terrorist attacks. The
> consequence was the atrocity of 9/11.
>
> Nancy Pelosi and those following her lead appear to have learned
> nothing in the years since.
>
> -------
>
> -C-
|
