A Reason to Be Skeptical

Are we really protected from any and all types of terrorist actions? Short answer is NO. Is it folly to even think such protection is possible? Short answer, probably.

Here's a slice of what the NYTimes editorial staff think:

The Bush administration likes to talk about how well it is protecting the nation from terrorism, but there is reason to be skeptical. Legislation on security for chemical plants has been blocked by special interests, and there have been unsettling reports recently about vulnerabilities in key areas like air travel and ports. This week, members of the 9/11 commission held the first of a series of hearings to explore the progress that has been made since Sept. 11 in making the nation safe. The commission's new project is a worthy one. There is a real need for outside review of the administration's efforts...

...The 9/11 commission's report called on Congress to improve its oversight of homeland security, and there is still much work to be done. Responsibility for the nation's safety is divided among too many committees and subcommittees. Congress should be holding more hearings and demanding more accountability from the administration.

A review led by a person with the resposiblity, scope, and authority such as Ken Starr had during the Clinton boondogle would be nice. Howsabout it?