The NY Times champions the cause of chemical plant security, something I thought had already been addressed (apparently not), and while the whole thing was a little surprising, this paragraph stuck out the most:
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. Senator Collins, the chairwoman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, has held hearings on chemical plant security, and has now come up with this bill with both Republican and Democratic sponsors.
The bill requires chemical plants to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security and emergency response plans. The Department of Homeland Security would be required to develop performance standards for chemical plant security. In extreme cases, plants that do not meet the standards could be shut down.
They haven’t done vulnerability assessments or developed response plans yet? This goes beyond government responsibility- how have they managed to continue without their insurers making sure this was taken care of. Or their investors? Or what about action by the local communities which would be affected by Bhopal-like clouds of gas covering the area?
*** Update ***
More here on DHS failings.
p.lukasiak
John, the President can only do so much — and his priorities are obviously to check your private communications for possible calls or emails to Osama bin Laden rather than actually ensure that chemical plants are not vulnerable to attack by some misfit who is inspired by OBL — or that gang at Waco, or the guy who blew up the Fed Office Building in Oklahoma city, or any other nutjob.
John Cole
This shouldn’t be a presidential responsibility.
Doctor Gonzo
What? You honestly thought assessments had been carried out at chemical plants? I thought that the fact that chemical industry lobbyists had stymied any and all attempts to beef up security was common knowledge. No, we haven’t done a single thing to prevent this very real terrorist threat. Nor have we done much for ports. Securing nuclear material in other countries? Not a high priority either. But, umm, we’re listening to people without warrants! That’s got to count for something.
Sojourner
Really? I thought the president was responsible for keeping us safe – which is why we should give up all of our rights so he can intrude into our personal lives and protect us.
I’m so confused. Daddy W tell me I’m safe.
capelza
John Cole, I too would have thought you knew about this.
Don’t you know that anyone that would dare to point out the need for this kind of security would only be an enviro-wacko using the threat of terrorism to shut down a good American industry???
Seriously though, as you point out it would seem that the insurnace industry would be all over this, except perhaps they don’t feel that the risk is all that great…which I think is odd, but that’s just me.
Andrew
I’m shocked (shocked!) that Republicans have put corporate interests above the security of the nation.
p.lukasiak
This shouldn’t be a presidential responsibility.
WTF!?!?!
I guess that explains why 9-11 happened. Airport security wasn’t a “presidential responsibility”.
Here’s a clue, John. IF a sucessful attack on a chemical plant were to happen, you can bet your pajamas-media-paid ass that Bush would suddenly be telling Americans everything he was doing to prevent another such attack.
John Cole
First off, fuck you.
Second, preventing foreign elements and terrorists from attacking anyone in the US is a presidential responsibility. DOING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND CREATING EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS should be the duty of, umm, the chemical plant and their owners in conjunction with local authorities.
Anderson
Goodness, Cole. If the feds don’t make these people do anything, who will?
I would imagine that the corporate structures are set up so that if we get Bhopal-on-the-Mississippi, the given facility declares bankruptcy & the corporate parents are insulated.
And does anyone know whether you can actually buy “disaster insurance” if you’re a chemical plant? Who, besides Lloyds, would write that? And who could afford it? Easier to declare bankruptcy, go through Chapter 11, and resume business as usual.
Matt
C’mon John–I don’t think anybody is suggesting that the President should personally be drawing up these plans, but responsibility falls up. If the NYT knows this hasn’t been done, then you can bet the president knows it hasn’t been done, and if he knows, then he ought to be making sure it gets done.
Otto Man
No offense, John, but we lefties have been screaming about this for years. Especially those of us who live a short bit away from the mass of chemical plants that run up and down the New Jersey Turnpike.
It’s part of the reason we get so upset with the Republican approach to Homeland Security funds — the one that gives places like Wyoming several times the per capita spending of New York, the one that’s so crazy that even the Washington Times editorial board has mocked it.
If this was news to you, then you might want to check into the pathetic state of port security, too. Sure, we’re only checking 5% of the containers that come into our shipping centers, but Christian County, KY, can now respond to a radiological attack. So it’s all good.
John Cole
I find it stunning that owners of corporations have to be ‘made’ to do these things, and I also find it hard to believe that EXISTING environmental laws did not require an emergency response plan. I mean, wtf. There are no plans for a release of a large cloud of chlorine gas?
Forget about terrorism. What about accidents? And that was my point, which should have been made clear by the bolding of the final paragraph in the blockquote, and this statement:
Apparently not. But hey, “Buck Fush!” “Worst… President… Ever…”
See- I can be a mindless automaton, too!
KC
As I recall, John Kerry made a little deal out of the lack of chemical plant security during the election, but it never really caught on. Actually, liberals and Dems have been discussing this issue for a while. Here’s Drum posting on the issue earlier this month and here’s a story from Common Dreams from last year on the matter.
Doctor Gonzo
Yes, but those things cost money. Lots of it. So unless there is a legislative mandate, it’s not going to get done. Do you honestly think that chemical companies are going to pour millions of dollars of their own money into this out of the goodness of their hearts?
I also have a hard time imagining why insurance companies would care about this. If it is a question of liability insurance for the chemical plants themselves, I doubt that the plants would be held financially liable for terrorist attacks on their premises that cause death and destruction elsewhere. If an attack were to happen, neither the chemical companies nor their insurers would be paying out I think.
capelza
John Cole..I refer you to my “enviro-whacko” comment. Don’t you know that any regulation is a capitulation to them? It’s only “alarmists” that bring that kind of stuff up. Bhopal will NEVER happen here, this is America!
John S.
John-
Meanwhile, Bush’s stooge at the EPA is actually pushing to REDUCE the annual reporting by factories – despite the fact that the industry soen’t seem to mind the reporting (and actually finds it useful).
Apparently, profits come first and safety places a distant last place. Wouldn’t want to create any beauracratic regulations that would be too burdensome on chemical companies, now would we?
Mike S
Yesterday Stormy said that the Republicans “get the big things right.” I guess if you count taking big contributions in order to block important legislation she is right.
And before I get the usual “Democrats do it too” I’ll say that of course they do but they aren’t in charge, aren’t listened to and it’s the New Republicans that keep claiming that their people are the only ones with a plan to keep us safe.
Anderson
I find it stunning that owners of corporations have to be ‘made’ to do these things
I am just sitting here blinking at my monitor and feeling like we are on different planets. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Federal legislation & regulation is the ONLY reason that corporate America has EVER cleaned up its act. Corporations declare that they have no duty except to maximize profits for their shareholders, and as my comment suggested, it can be more profitable to run a crappy operation than to pay for a safe one.
Yet another example of why we don’t want a pure free market, any more than we want “pure free weather” with no roofs to inhibit the rain from falling on our heads.
p.lukasiak
John…. here is a clue.
The Federal Government already has programs to ensure “workplace safety” — that would include programs to make sure that “accidents” don’t happen in chemical plants.
The issue isn’t “accidents”, because these plants are (supposedly) built to conform to safety standards that would precluded an accidental disaster. What we don’t have in place is a means of ensuring that a disaster is not caused deliberately, by someone affiliated with al Qaeda or just some garden variety nutcase.
….and please get a clue. A cloud of poisonous gas would not respect municipal, county, or state boundaries. That makes it a federal problem, and Bush is supposed to be in charge of federal problems.
First off, fuck you.
will you be taking off your pajamas first?
Ancient Purple
Wait.
You are entrusting corporate America to police itself with regards to terrorist attack readiness?
For sale: beautiful ocean front condo in Phoenix.
demimondian
Hmm. John, think like a plant owner for a second.
Let’s say there’s a chemical emergency at your client’s plant. Which sounds worse “We followed all the regulations, and were inspected on a regular basis. Something went wrong that we could not foresee,” or “We followed all applicable regulations, were inspected on a regular basis, and then carefully listed the things we thought could go wrong anyway, and figured out the best way to respond to them.”
I’ll bet you think it’s the second, right? Wrong.
If I’m the plaintiff’s attorney in the case, then I start with your list of vulnerabilities, and ask why you hadn’t fixed them. You *can’t* answer “because it would cost too much, because you’ve just “put a price on people’s lives”, you mercenary monster, you.
John Cole
I clearly don’t think like corporate America and am out of touch, because if I ran a chemical plant, my first concern post 9/11 would not be how to shift/deflect legal liability should my plant be attacked, but it would be to beef up security and make sure I was not a target.
ppGaz
I don’t totally agree about presidential responsibility.
I consider it a matter of homeland security, and we have a new cabinet department with that title. Executive leadership is definitely called for. For a lot less than what it’s costing us to wage a futile war on the other side of the globe, we could be addressing a whoe spectrum of homeland vulnerabilities to borders and infrastructure that would really increase our security in insecure times.
Among many thing that will be remembered about this administration of potatoheads is the extent to which they have squandered time and resources that could have been used to really improve the safety nets around critical infrastructure. The neglect has been wide, deep, and in my view, criminal. There’s no excuse for it. It’s shameful.
Perry Como
I wonder what the chances are that companies have actually done an internal risk assessment and decided that the risk doesn’t justify the costs? iirc, there was a particular vehicle that had a faulty part and the car company decided it was more cost effective to deal with law suits rather than recall all the vehicles and replace the part.
A company’s bottom line is not beholden to the loss of life.
Mike S
I am by no means part of the anti corporation left. But corporate interests have always been about the bottom line. That is why it drives me nuts when I hear bout how all of the regulations need to be thrown over the side and the market forces will take care of all of this.
My own bay, Santa Monica Bay, was destroyed by toxic dumping. When I was a kid you could find all kinds of shells and starfish on the shore. In the 70’s all of that started dying off. It’s only been in the last ten years or so that we have seen a return of some shells and a few dolphin pods. There are still a lot of types of fish that are not safe to eat if caught in the bay.
It was govt regulation that stopped the dumping and forced clean ups (special thanks to Quincy ME).
demimondian
Unfortunately, if you run a chemical plant, there’s no realistic mechanism to make yourself not a target. A Cessna could fly into any above-ground tank or cracking tower and rupture it — that’s game over.
Could it be fixed? For the tank, possibly. For the cracking tower, no. So the whole exercise would be kind of pointless.
(Unless you’re planning on allowing chemical plants to install AA batteries. Somehow, I don’t think you want to go there, though.)
Matt
Which is pretty much why you’re not running a chemical plant, eh?
searp
Government needs to force something here, regardless of what you think of chemical plant owners.
A corporation that owns a chemical plant simply isn’t in a position to either do a reasonable security analysis OR provide the required countermeasures. After all, you may need, at a minimum, weapons that aren’t normally legal for civilians.
Steve S
Well clearly.
Corporate America’s first concern was to deflect legal liability. That is why they are demanding Tort Reform, so that if they do spew a mushroom cloud of Chlorine Gas over Salt Lick, Indiana, they only have to pay $200,000 per person rather than the projected billions it might otherwise cost from all those individual lawsuits.
Doctor Gonzo
If we had an administration that was seriously concerned about protecting us from another terrorist attack, we would have this. The President would ask the DHS to come up with the legislation we need to do security assessments, to beef up protection at our ports, and everything else that should be done to try to head off these threats. After all, that’s what the Department of Homeland Security should be for, shouldn’t it? Then the President would go to Congress with these proposals and ask them to be passed. Since this stuff would be expensive, the President would ask for a new tax to pay for this, something spread out across the economy, as this kind of public safety affects everyone. Then these things would be put into practice.
Now, if any part of that last paragraph sounds like the Bush administration to anybody, please give me some of what you are smoking.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
You also don’t think like an attorney. (A compliment on both counts, actually.)
Pooh
Beat me to it. I want to emphasise the information side – assuming good-faith management, they are primarily concerned about accident prevention and minimization, which is all well and good, but it’s not hard to imagine that the likely ‘soft points’ for a terrorist attack are different from the likely accident causes.
Dem, it took me a second to realise what you were talking about…how would remote control batteries help a chemical plant? (Lesson, sometimes I’m stupid).
Gold Star for Robot Boy
C’mon, John, corporations had to be forced into respecting child labor laws, paying a minimum wage, estabishing a 40-hour work week and so on. Why should this be any different?
Corporations aren’t supposed to be good citizens. In fact, doing so invites a shareholder revolt. Corporations are supposed to MAKE MONEY – period.
(Speaking of which, anyone paying attention to the lawsuit against the Daytona Beach newspaper? The News-Journal is 51-percent owned by a family, which accepts less of a profit so it can be a good member of the community – higher staffing, naming rights to a new arts center, etc. But the paper’s minority partner is suing because the N-J doesn’t return a profit in line with the rest of the industry.)
searp
It turns into an interesting question very quickly.
I assume that insurors don’t care because they have acts of war/acts of God clauses that limit their exposure.
The owning corporation is simply unable to do the right thing – it isn’t an organization that can cope with a military-style attack.
Absent help from the gov, I’d say a reasonable strategy is to limit exposure using a corporate structure, as has been previously suggested.
The real point is that the gov would have to be intimately involved for an effective defense.
Sojourner
Actually, not everyone would agree with this. Now you can challenge him on whether he actually did what he says but Jack Welch does, in fact, claim that corporations should be good citizens.
demimondian
Yes, and that immediately makes this an Executive responsibility.
John, I’m afraid you’re stuck with Buck Fush for this one — the Pres and his people are doing a heckuca job, once again.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
For every Welch, there’s a regiment of Ken Lays.
Bernard Yomtov
True. Which is why (brace yourselves, libertarians) regulation is needed to make them do it. And why some genuine effort by Bush to get legislation along this line would be appropriate.
Sojourner
True. My only point is unmitigated greed is not necessarily the sole responsibility of corporations. And I gave a citation from the horse’s mouth to prove it.
OCSteve
Christ that is truly frightening. Over 4 years and their damned PAC has successfully blocked any legislation on this?
Just imagine a coordinated attack against 5 or 6 at once. Tens of thousands dead and half a million hospitalized?
Check this:
Corrupt bastards.
Friggin’ Republicans blocking changes. Bought and paid for.
Whatever you lefties want to say about BushCo or the GOP on this issue – I agree with you. This is a disgrace and they should be called on the carpet for it.
Sojourner
Kind of late to the party, aren’t you? Why is it that the Dems figured this crap out early in the first term of this administration while Repubs are only now just starting to get it?
capelza
OCSteve…I’m glad that you are seeing this. This is a good thing. While Sojourner is right about the tardiness, it is still great that folks can see it finally for themselves. I do blame the partisan divide. Nobody listening to each other.
Though I do have to say that this stuff has been known,as Sojourner said. I can’t for the life of me understnad how come it never got beyond the left side of the ether… :(
searp
My remarks should not be viewed as an apology for the chemical industry, but this is a problem I have studied professionally.
Security against entirely plausible attacks on these facilities will be tremendously expensive. So expensive that I often think nothing gets done because everyone ends up paralyzed by the cost.
The rational response is to ratchet up security, understanding that these facilities would still be quite vulnerable, but less vulnerable than if nothing were done. There is no excuse for not taking this step.
Andrei
The things you write about sometimes, Cole… Explain to us again why you’re a republican? You don’t have to be a democrat, but why on earth do you get surprised by these sorts of things?
Consider renting and watching this movie: The Corporation. Whether you agree with the movie’s thesis or not, it’s certainly worth considering the ideas presented in the movie if for nothing more than further discussion. It’s premise explains with some credibility why these chemical plant owners act the way they do.
OCSteve
BTW – I’m not talking about government enforcement of somehow securing the plants. I think that would be a waste of money and effort. No matter how you secure the physical plant, 1 guy in a Cessna packed with explosives negates it all.
I’m talking more about the EPA and some serious push to force the move to alternative chemicals. You can’t protect the chorine tank – you need to get rid of it. If ozone works as well as chorine for a specific purpose then why is it not used? Money? Is ozone more expensive for the task? Expensive to convert? Tough. Spend some of those HS dollars to help plants make the change.
feral1
If the level of due diligence and security measures for all chemical plants is not defined and mandated by federal law then there is an economic disincentive for companies to put in place robust security measures. These things cost a lot of money. If Plant A puts in place comprehensive security measures and Plant B does nothing, then Plant A’s operating costs just got a lot higher than Plant B’s.
I’m constantly amazed that so many conservatives don’t seem to really grasp fundamental aspects of how a market economy works.
Andrei
I don’t buy that. It’s like your own health, you have to start somewhere, and it’s fine to walk then jog before you run. That the industry has not taken small dose steps year over year to address the issues going forward is inexcusable and the worst kind of laziness to solve real problems.
demimondian
For what it is worth, a good attorney would tell a chemical plant ower to do a vulnerability analysis in the context of legal consultation. Then the analysis would not be discoverable, and, if obtained by some other means, would not be admissible.
Ozymandius
Yup. And there is a school of thought that any action not mandated by law that decreases the value of the firm is outright theft from the stockholders. So there’s a nice spectrum, even among those who aren’t overtly malicious.
OCSteve
I do recall it coming up in the election cycle. Sadly, there is no way this issue alone would cause me to vote for sKerry.
I have no problem calling the party I voted for on something like this. In fact if it happened tomorrow I would call it criminal negligence and corruption.
In general I agree with smaller government and not over-regulating business. But this was pretty high on the todo list after 9/11.
What really needs to happen though is getting rid of all PACs. Every single one of them. They corrupt the system (even more than it would tend to be already).
kdaug
Or simply bury the tanks. Costly, but only up-front, and quite effective.
Sojourner
Then spare us the outrage. Continuing to vote for those who are culprits in all this removes your right to be outraged.
DougJ
Are you serious? Why would they do them unless they were “made” to? Inspections cost money.
Otto Man
Wouldn’t even take that. There are multiple plants located on the NJ Turnpike between exits 12 and 15, which also conventiently hold the incredibly busy Newark International Airport, several huge malls, and lots of suburban communities. An SUV with a few RPGs could do immense damage to the local areas, and then prevailing winds would blow the clouds right towards a small community called New York City.
But again, all that homeland security money was better spent on bulletproof vests for dogs in Columbus, Ohio, and a decontamination unit in rural Washington that sat in a box for a year. I’m so glad the grown-ups are in charge.
Sojourner
This is small potatoes compared to the billions being wasted in Iraq. But I agree, I’m so glad the grown-ups are in charge. I feel so much safer.
DougJ
John, what are you doing in this thread? Of course this is the federal government’s responsibility. I have no idea who dropped the ball, congress or the president, but you can’t be serious when you say you think plants would do this on their own. Are you joking around? Sometimes I wonder.
Otto Man
Oh, I agree with that. But it’s sad to see that even the remaining funds earmarked for HS are doled out like pork for highway appropriations.
Sojourner
Agreed!
Otto Man
It’s finally happened. Doug J has seized control of the blog posts themselves.
searp
Andrei: I agree with the walk then jog then run analogy. I was only trying to point out that even with goodwill (not there, most likely) the patient is probably going to have to stop at the walking stage.
These facilities are real vulnerable. Burying them would help, as suggested by another poster, but my guess is that this would also be incredibly expensive.
Nikki
History has proven time and time again that corporations don’t or won’t consider the public’s best interests unless gov’t forces them to. Remember “The Jungle” and the creation of the FDA? Sorry, John, but this does fall under the province of presidential responsibility.
DougJ
That’s what John’s comments sound like here. To be completely honest, I think that he does play my little game of taking crazy positions every now and then to stir up debate. Let’s face it: it works and these tactics are probably part of the reason why this blog has by far the best comments section around.
Dulcie
Many of the bigger chemical and oil refining companies are self-insurers, therefore what insurance companies think is a non-issue.
I don’t know if anyone remembers the big explosion at the BP refinery in Texas City, TX back in March of this year. This explosion was due to equipment failure and user error, but it just as easily could’ve been sabotage/terrorism (it wasn’t). BP is a self insurer, and they paid out the wazoo to the families of the people who were killed/injured in the explosion. There was a cost benefit analysis (gotta love actuaries) done prior to the explosion. The comapny decided it would be cheaper to pay off the families of people killed/injured in an accident than it would be to fix problems that could cause an accident to begin with. Remember, refining is not the moneymaker for oil companies. Exploration and production are.
Additionally, most big chem plants in the southeast are located in areas that most people who can afford not to live near them don’t/won’t live. These areas already have a very low property tax base, because the people who like in these locations are poor. The towns and counties where said chem plants and refineries are located depend heavily on the tax revenue that these plants provide – for schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. In Brazoria and Galveston counties in Texas, the chem plants and refineries are the single largest source of tax revenue.
If you’ve ever lived or even driven in the vicinity of any of these types of plants, you can see how vulnerable they are. I can’t remember seeing any visible security. I’m not saying that there isn’t, I just remember thinking as I drove by the Texas City refinery how easy it would be for someone to do serious damage from the outside.
I can’t understand why protecting these plants from a terrorist attack isn’t a national priority. Heck, I can’t see why self policing isn’t a priority for the chem companies. Explosions cost money. But i’m not a chem/refinery plant owner looking at their bottom line, or their shareholders, or their executive bonuses. And yes, this last line is pure snark.
John Cole
I guess I am just naive, DougJ. I thought the owners of a chemical plant would be concerned with the safety of the plant.
Nikki
Are you surprised that a car or tire manufacturer is not that concerned about the safety of its product? What’s the difference?
Sojourner
I wonder how many libertarians assume that the world works the way John thinks it does. I cannot for the life of me understand those who want to get rid of all government oversight. Do they seriously believe that meat producers won’t sell bad meat? That corporations won’t pollute? That manufacturers won’t make defective products?
John Cole
I don’t want to get rid of government oversight. I merely want as little government oversight as is necessary.
I just assumed that there already was existing oversight on, you know, chemical plants.
Pooh
John,
I think they are concerned, but their expertise (both in house and outsourced) will almost certainly involve safety within the plant – minimizing accidents and stuff like that. An act of intentional sabotage is just outside their expertise, and so they probably both underestimate the scope and magnitude of the danger, and don’t really know where to begin (or, as has been suggested, have the intelligence resources or equipment neccesary) in protecting/minimizing from that threat.
ppGaz
Okay, which one of you is spoofing now?
John, you might want to talk to people who live near the waterways around Midland, Michigan. In particular, the Titibawassee River as it makes its way to the Saginaw River.
The endless saga of a ruined river ….
Midland is a company town. The company is Dow Chemical.
You figure it out.
Pooh
John,
The problem is information. A key assumption of markets-based microeconomics is full information, and as society becomes increasingly complex (and it’s citizens become decreasingly inquisitive?) that validity of that assumption becomes weaker.
Imperfect information = market failures, blah blah blah, massive chlorine cloud over Chicago…
Sojourner
My apologies. I thought someone had said you were a libertarian.
Paul Wartenberg
The President of the United States has the moral authority to call in the chemical lobbyists and their paymaster CEOs and tell them straight up they need to do the security assessments and upgrades for the good of their business. One blown-up chlorine tank and the survivors can sue everybody for… oh wait the GOP has given the industries liability protection from lawsuits from grieving survivors. Great. We’re screwed.
DougJ
That is also correct.
OCSteve
Sojourner,
Spare me. I vote for the lesser of 2 evils – that has been the only choice for years. I don’t agree with everything the party does – probably not even half.
I’ll assume you are 100% on board with everything the Democrats have done or want to do. I guess it’s all or none.
Hmm. What happened to nuance?
demimondian
In fact, the process of mitigating any threat to a chemical plant might well involve law enforcement.
Yeah, you can bury some of the tanks, but that has some limitations. First, you can’t bury all of them: the ground water is itself a threat to the tanks. Second, burying them doesn’t necessarily mitigate the threat: a chlorine leak from a subterranean tank will poison the ground water for miles around with chlorinated organics, not to mention the tank itself being a target for a Van-full-o’TNT instead of a plane-full-o’TNT. Third, and worst, there are other vulnerabilities in a chemical plant which require access to the atmosphere. I’d rather not list the ones that I’ve found this morning. Let’s just say that I wouldn’t want to be responsible for the physical security of a modern chemical plant, and leave it at that.
Darrell
Typical knee jerk leftist comment. Of course car and tire manufacturers are concerned about the safety of their products, as their sales depend on having a safe reputation.. not to mention the cost of lawsuits as a result of accidents. Get a grip.
John, your instincts are good in that big daddy Federal govt does not have to be involved for there to be other incentives, especially financial incentives for these plants to maintain good safety requirements.
However, I cannot imagine these plants with the resources to protect themselves against terrorist attack. Those tank farms and process facilites Dulcie refers to are well within RPG range, even outside the security fences. I’d like to hear the chemical industry’s arguments as to why they didn’t want federal assistence to protect their plants. I can’t imagine them turning away cost free security. No doubt there were a lot of strings attached, or it makes no sense otherwise why they would turn such assistance away
ppGaz
Good lord.
For some reason the words “Karl Rove” and “George Bush” come to mind.
Nuance? Kiss my ass.
DougJ
What ever happened to Defense Guy? He’d be good in a thread like this.
demimondian
You mean “I voted for the war before I voted against it?”
Nuance is, and always has been, a losing proposition in American politics.
DougJ
Actually, Darrell wrote a good “reasonable conservative” comment there. But how long until he hijacks this thing and starts talking about how Bill Clinton didn’t protect the chemical plants either?
OCSteve
Hey I thought it was us rethuglicans who thought everything was black and white, with us or against us, etc. Dems were all about shades of grey…
So now I can’t disagree with something the party I voted for has (not) done because I voted for them.
I’m puckering up as I post this.
ppGaz
Have another alum sandwich.
Sojourner
You’re kidding, right? The past five years have been a give-away to corporate interests and the very wealthy. Wtf are you talking about? Nuance about the centerpiece of this administration’s agenda?
Mike S
That’s because you are a reasonable man. Unortunately that is not common enough in the elected GOP.
I guess that’s why FireStone did a cost/benefit analisys and decided that the cost of recalling their tires would be more than the cost of lawsuits. What did they do after that Darrell?
demimondian
Well, one of the things that they did was reinforce in the eyes of every corporate lawyer out there that ignorance is better than knowledge when it comes to risk assessment for consumers and workers.
It’s almost the textbook example of the law of unintended consequences: tort judgements, which are supposed to encourage good behavior on the part of disinterested parties, actually encouraged bad behavior in this case.
OCSteve
Not kidding but obviously wasting my time. Even when I agree with you guys it’s a disagreement.
Yeah, I voted for a give-away to corporate interests and the very wealthy. That’s just what I was thinking in the booth. Too bad I don’t fit either category.
I voted based on one issue. This issue (homeland security) is part of that. So when I am reminded that enough has not been done and it’s my party responsible for that I get pissed at them. It’s really not any more complicated than that.
You would prefer I spend my time making excuses for them?
Darrell
They lost their ass in lawsuits and in lost sales due to an unsafe reputation. Any other questions?
kdaug
demimondian,
I should have clarified: I wasn’t intending that we bury the tanks directly in the ground, but rather build lined vaults to hold them. The technical hurdles aren’t insurmountable, just seems to be a cost/benefit issue.
Mike S
And yet there are numerous other corps that take that gamble all the time. And once congress completes there law suit legislation exactly what will stop these type of things from happenning again?
Darrell
You can say that again.. care to estimate the cost of making every fuel and process fluid/gas tank in America missile-proof?
demimondian
Possibly — but it seems to me that you’re solving a social problem (living in a free society–which some of us might not think of as a problem at all) by technological means. If you make the vaults tougher, then I just need a bigger bomb, after all, and, sooner or later, you need armed gaurds to protect the vault.
Makes more sense to start with the armed guards to begin with, and put control over them where it belongs.
Sojourner
Nope. I prefer you pay attention to exactly what these people are up to. Then vote accordingly.
capelza
It seems to me that the “security” paradigm of this administration is simply doing things that look like they are doing something, like the airline security and the ridiculous and even counterproductive lengths that are gone to, such as pulling over Al Gore or Joe Scarborough for special searches. And handing out money equally to sagebrush as to major urban areas.
Meanwhile the huge vunerabilities like chemical plants and port security (I can tell you, our little deep water port is an attack waiting to happen, but that is all I’ll say) are ignored because they are either bought off or not something that we, the people, really notice..does that make sense?
searp
I think demimondian has the critical point: it would be very, very expensive to achieve a high level of protection against a spectrum of credible threats.
This doesn’t excuse doing nothing, and points out something that to me is an interesting procedural issue. Police, at least some, are now briefed in to Federal programs and have Federal clearances. It seems to me that some security officers in the private sector deserve similar access. I wonder if even this has been done?
Adina Levin
Isn’t that what tort reform is for?
Darrell
tort reform is for the lawyers who sue Ford for the actions of a drunk driver who was driving their car
Frank
Adina- Yup tort reform and the mighty wurlitzer.
OCSteve
So give me an alternative. The current Democratic party is certainly not it. Maybe if you ran Lieberman, but we both know the possibility of that is exactly zero. Voting Libertarian is a wasted vote. Like I said, the lesser of 2 evils. (In my mind, I’m sure you don’t agree. Wouldn’t expect you to.)
Run Lieberman instead of the Hildabeast in 08 and you have my vote.
demimondian
No — tort reform is unemployment insurance for attorneys who will need to find ways around the new law.
kdaug
I having difficulty seeing how the armed guard prevents an RPG attack. The vaults, in my thinking, serve two purposes – one, to reduce the profile, and two, to mitigate the spread of gas should there be an attack.
Cheaper than moving the plants all out to the desert and building a whole lot of pipeline, but more effective than a couple tough guys with M-16s.
capelza
OCSteve, what I would like to see is a groundswell from the Republican base about issues like this one. I’m not talking about in elections, but simple and vocal outrage, loud enough that the politicans sit up and notice. I don’t see that, except here and there in the blogworld. The constituency does not have to wait for an election.
Ancient Purple
I am sure that will provide great comfort to the family of anyone who were to die as a result of residual effects from a plant devastated by a terrorist attack.
Mr Furious
I just skipped all the way down, to say…
“John, are you fucking kidding me?!?!”
Where the hell have you been? This has been the case ever since 9/11. I realize that you had to be living in some kind of “Cone of Denial” in order to vote for Bush last year, but, come on.
I don’t even know what to think about the fact that this comes as a surprise to you. I am shocked. Seriously. Shocked and disappointed. You shouldn’t even have admitted it.
Steve S
But how would that help them win elections?
That’s the only thing they care about. That and tax cuts for people who make more money than they do.
OCSteve
Agreed. I wrote my Senators (both D) and my Representative (R) today on this issue. I was fairly vocal :). I agree that spouting off in the ‘sphere has little to no effect.
My mail will be read by some staffer and quickly placed in the circular file, but maybe a check mark will go in the right column on some tally sheet.
Nash
It would appear from your further comments that you mean this in a sincere, and not sarcastic, way:
Like Anderson, I can only stare, blinkly dumbly, at a monitor with those words on it. They are written in a language I used to think I was familiar with.
I finally understand how far apart our worlds truly are. I can’t even be frustrated or angry with you, John, just sad that that our experiences of human and business nature are so very, terribly different.
It explains a lot. It makes me understand and actually like you a lot more than I thought I did. It also makes me incredibly sad when I find that I am not the most naive and idealistic person in the room.
demimondian
kdaug — why do you think I’m thinking of a couple of guys with m-16s? My argument is that if the plants are a genuine security risk, then the federal government needs to take over security, and that means guys with really big and brawny weapons. (Notice, for instance, that the security for seaports like capelza’s or Seattle’s is already nationalized. I don’t know how much better the ports in Central Oregon are doing, but Seattle and Tacoma are getting progressively hardened.)
kdaug
Ah, appears I took the “armed guards” suggestion a bit out of context then. But even should we nationalize the plants (something I would imagine would cause a good deal of legal/economic/logistical problems – think TSA, coupled with private property/ownership issues), wouldn’t you still want to reduce the profile of the targets? Seems to me that fits into the basic definition of “hardening”…
ppGaz
But it’s the most loving and nurturing kind.
ppGaz
Heh. That’s what every real Dem wants …. your vote.
“Run” Lieberman? If that means putting 115 vac up his ass, count me in. I think that ought to be enough to make him run.
I wouldn’t vote for that mealy-mouthed motherfucker if he were running for assistant treasurer of my neighborhood association, unopposed.
OCSteve
Yeah – I always do feel nurtured when I’m done here :) (Maybe I meant neutered?)
Knew you would like that ppGaz :)
So you don’t want any converts? Got it all wrapped up?
So seriously. I voted repub last time out. Since then I am disgusted with most of their domestic policy, and some of their foreign policy. Give me an alternative… It has to be someone committed to prosecuting the GWOT, and not in the courts. They have to commit to protecting this country. Lieberman (and before him Miller) are as close as you get.
No one endorsed by MoveOn and Kos is going to get my vote. The Hildabeast definitely will not. Give me a credible alternative to whoever the GOP puts out there.
capelza
OCSteve, can you define what you mean by “comitted to prosecuting the GWOT”. What should it entail in your viewpoint? I am sincerely curious.
demimondian
I’m going to join capelza on this. Like her or not, Sen. Clinton has been a hard-liner on GWOT, so it sounds to me like she’d be a good candidate for you.
searp
We may think court proceedings are optional for the GWOT, but many of the European countries we need don’t have this view.
I’d say our willingness to ignore those pesky laws hurts us as far as European cooperation. This is important because there are big reservoirs of potential enemies in Europe, and dealing with them will require a European response. We can render a few, but the big response in Europe will be European.
I happen to think that the same is true in places like Indonesia and Pakistan. Our forces are simply insufficient – we need allies. I suppose that makes me a proponent of a multilateral, as opposed to unilateral, GWOT, which in turn requires compromise.
In sum: cooperation will win this, not the Marines. Nothing against the Marines, I have worked for and with them, just not the right tool for the job.
Phil Smith
Short answer for “why haven’t insurers forced this issue?”
TRIA
Sorry if this has already been mentioned; I just find reading long comment threads on this blog to be tedious beyond words.
Pooh
Does anyone else see the irony in Darrell making the above statement?
OCSteve
I mean willing to use military force where necessary. Not treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Not lob a couple of cruise missiles at a few tents and call it a day. Not give the corrupt UN the final word on things. No cut-n-run from Afghanistan or Iraq.
Iran and Syria are serious problems likely to face the next administration. I think there is a good possibility that Syria will be reformed from within. I think there is a good chance that military intervention will be required with Iran.
If a US city is nuked by terrorists, will the CiC nuke someone back? (I admit it may be hard to determine who).
Sorry – the woman wants to be the first female president and everything else is secondary to that. She knows that most of the country doesn’t trust Dems with defending the country. She has to sound like a hawk to appeal to them. She is as far left as it gets (socialist) but has been moving to center to get elected. I can not place any trust in the woman.
ppGaz
That’s what I mean. A “credible alternative” to … uh.. Bill Frist? Satan would be a credible alternative.
A “credible alternative” to Condi Rice? How about Ativan?
You don’t want a “credible alternative” if you’d even consider voting for seriously crazy people like those two.
That’s why you have GWB, the ne’er do well alcoholic black sheep of a dysfunctional family, as president now.
demimondian
Hmm. Given my on-going debate with the left-wingers here (effective today, I’m a conservatve, I guess.), I’d think that Clinton would do better to move left on a bunch of hot-button issues before the primaries, and only move right when and if she’d won the nomination. Seems to me that her current triangulation is contrary to her persidential ambition.
Am I missing something?
Sojourner
I won’t give my vote to anyone who is way out of touch with what I stand for. I don’t have any expectations that I’ll be voting for a presidential candidate in 2008. I won’t vote for McCain (pro ID), Guiliani (too busy kissing right-wing ass), or Clinton (also busy kissing right-wing ass).
I don’t want to have to apologize for my vote.
capelza
Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things, but a socialist has never been one of them, really. I read this at FR and other places, but aside from trying to find a solution to the continuing health care crisis in this country, nothing that I am aware of in her life screams socialist. A former Goldwater girl, a lawyer, stock potfolio. Yeah, the DLC, those hard left pinko commies….the fact that she is hawkish on the war comes as no suprise to me.
Not that I am a huge fan of hers, I just don’t know where the whole Hillary is a socialist meme came from.
OCSteve
All becomes clear once we send you your VRWC membership card and put you on Karl’s list for daily talking points :)
She does need to get through the primaries, but the hard-left grass roots organizations are already realizing she is their best bet. When push comes to shove they will take a dive. My opinion of course. That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee in most cities…
OCSteve
Well, HillaryCare was enough, but the final straw for me was this unguarded moment:
…”Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
Zifnab
She’s certainly got her eyes on the prize, but why call her committment to the GWOT her shilling point? Why not bring up the “it takes a village” line? I see a great number of right-wingers ready to sell out Hillary as a pinko commie in a business suit when her history and her politics seem to scream the exact opposite.
capezla’s got the right idea. Anyone who calls Bill Clinton a far left wacko clearly hasn’t so much as met non-conservative, much less an actual far left wacko. And, to me personally, Hillary comes across as far more conservative than her husband.
The GOP loved the Democrats when they ran Kerry. They loved the Dems when Daschale pulled all his punches in the Senate. People who play Republican Lite are just so damn easy to beat. The GOP is truly scared of Dean because he awakens the true left-wing base in this country and isn’t afraid to pitch the same verbal smear the right-wing liberal bashers toss around.
But the GOP really fears Hillary because she’s everything they are, but reversed. She’s got a solid conservative agenda that Bush Co. only pretends to support. She’s got politics that resound with a great many right wing Americans. And worse, she’s got a strong following in the left-wing Dems. She’s got everything Bill’s got. And she’s totally winnable the same way Bill was. She’s the Republican nightmare – everything they claim to be, but working for the enemy.
Zifnab
Oh noss! You mean Hillary wants us to pay for our war and our corporate welfare with money we actually reap from taxes? You mean she’s going to roll back all the ill-gotten gains the riches 1% of America so rightfully claimed five years ago? That evil bitch! How dare she demand fiscal accountability!
I thought we were just going to run this country on plastic for the next century or two. Cause I hear that works really well.
Ancient Purple
Are you saying that stopping a tax cut to fund a war effort is socialism?
If that is the case, God only knows what you must think of President Lincoln.
capelza
Well dayum….that means I have to give back that 300 lousy bucks I got a few years ago? Happily.
Tax cuts in wartime, when we are going in debt up to our children’s eyeballs…yeah, I think that what she is talking about is THE common good, not some fairy dust trickle-down (I always think of piss when I hear this phrase) supply side hoohaa. That’s just honesty.
Sorry, when I think of socialism, I think of nationalising industries, stuff like that. Telling the country we can’t afford tax cuts, not so much. And why, may I ask, did you say “this UNGUARDED moment”? Seems to me she was speaking in public. Just sayin’.
Davebo
So OC’s dream candidate is a person with absolutely zero fiscal restraint that will be willing to nuke someone, anyone, in the case of a future terrorist attack on the US.
Hmmmmm… I’d say Zell is your man! If you can put up with the drooling that is.
Anderson
OC, that quote from Hillary didn’t come off quite as you intended.
In poll after poll, Americans are willing to reject further tax cuts if the money gets used to pay down our debt or for other good purposes. They just don’t want to think it’s being spent, um, the way the Republican Congress has spent it—giveaways to drug companies, etc.
capelza
You know, this has bothered me a LOT…the idea that this war does not require any real sacrifice on the part of the American public. Maybe because I was raised by my grandparents who remember the REAL sacrifices they made on the home front. Rationing, etc. The war effort was very real to them. These days, the fact that someone can complain during a time of war (one that they are very strong on) that they aren’t getting a tax cut. What the hell is wrong with this country?
Davebo
So many Alaskan islands, but fortunately, so many suckers around to bridge them.
OCSteve
No. I mean she wants to take from those who can and give to those who can’t.
No. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” The war was not the context.
She was speaking to the choir. Didn’t expect it to go much past there. If “common good” does not raise your hackles – we will never agree.
Not quite – I want fiscal responsibility. We can get an aide to wipe the drool.
This has been fun folks. Now I have to take my lovely wife out to dinner. Spend my ill-gotten tax cuts and all. Do my capitalist thing. Etc. Get out of the blogosphere for a break.
I’ll be back tomorrow for you to beat me up :)
Pooh
I can see the proposed site of one from my office window…
Ancient Purple
Let’s say I take for granted that you are correct…
You are then opposed to:
National defense
The Interstate System
The National Parks System
Biomedical research
Public education
Etc.
Basically, anything that receives taxpayer dollars to benefit the nation is a bad thing.
It must be nice living in a land where the streets are paved by themselves and people never have to pay medical bills out of pocket.
Steve S
The people calling Hillary a socialist are out of touch with reality.
The healthcare thing they were working on back in ’93/’94 was market based, and was simply an attempt to clean up many of the problems we have today with lack of proper competition and market dynamics.
Sadly it was defeated by the obstinate Republicans. I say Sadly, because what’s likely to happen now is our healthcare will further go into the toilet, and the end result will be an acceptance of socialized medicine by the American people.
you extremists simply beget your own. you solve no problems, you offer no solutions.
DougJ
Has any of you ever read “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote” by Borges?
Zifnab
I can understand, after five years of Bush Co in office, why the words “common good” could raise your hackles. It seems that these words consistantly herald wasteful spending, pork barrel politics, and general abuses of the budget. And I don’t really trust the Democrats with my money, I just trust them exponentially more than their Republican counterparts.
If Hillary is the lesser of two evils, she’s much much much much much lesser.
demimondian
I haven’t certainly — between War on Nouns and what passes for reasoning among children, I have enough experience with magical reality on a daily basis.
Why?
CaseyL
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Now, where does “progressive taxation” fit into that definition of socialism?
It doesn’t. (Actually, America’s progressive tax was the brainchild of that noted Marxist-Leninist, Teddy Roosevelt.)
There are times when the usual American illiteracy amuses me. More often, though, it just blows my mind. Americans have no freaking idea what “communism” is, nor “socialism” – which shouldn’t be too surprising, since they don’t know what a “scientific theory” is either.
“Socialism” is when the govenment nationalizes industries by taking them over and running them from a centralized control center.
“Socialism” is not the government using tax monies to pay for public services. Nor is progressive taxation a socialist policy. Socialist countries do have progressive taxation… they also have lots of things most sane people want their country to have, like well-funded public schools, public utilities, public infrastructure.
I am constantly amazed by people who persist in believing – against all evidence – that a modern society doesn’t need public services, that privatization would be “better.” This, even after we’ve seen, close up and personal, over and over again, that entrusting our health and safety to private enterprise is dumb, dumb, dumb.
It’s not even purely a matter of corporations caring only about revenues. though they do. It’s also a matter that no corporation, no factory, no industry has the expertise, or the cash, or the shareholder support, to plan, test, organize, coordinate, and implement a national safety policy.
demimondian
Ummm…no.
“Socialism” denotes a society in which workers control the means of production, whether in a democratic manner, through union ownership of corporate stocks, or in an autocratic, where industries are nationalized by government fiat. Until Thatcher, Britain was socialist in the first sense, but not in the second. You’d be hard pressed to get many Britons to go back to pre-Thatcherite Britain — they may not like New Labour, but they ain’t eager to go back to Old Labour.
Pb
For those who are wondering about what is and isn’t a presidential priority here, I’ve got two words for ya… asbestos reform. Or, straight from the horse’s mouth:
Yeah, that’s the big threat that requires immediate legislation–the threat that some sick, dying, or dead working-class Americans who have been screwed over the hardest might finally pry a few cents back from the corporations that screwed them in the first place.
Follow the money. And weep.
DougJ
It makes me think of the whole “is OCSteve an idiot or a clever troll” thing. The story is that a guy rewrites Don Quixote as a 20th century person and how it reads differently, even though it is word for word the same. I won’t be able to describe it properly, so just read it.
RonB
Two guesses on how that was accomplished: 1) by amplifying the crazed rhetoric of the part of the Left that doesn’t know it’s being watched and doesn’t know how to take a breath in a public forum, and 2)Demonizing a so-called “Mainstream Media” and accusing it of blatant bias to the left.
As to what degree those two groups are responsible for these distortions, thats another story.
RonB
I won’t presume to speak for our host, but I think I had to get mad enough at Bush/Republican dishonesty before I snapped out of the 9/11 frame and started looking at what these clowns are really doing/not doing.
Well, maybe not just that-the Miers nomination…it was embarassing, you know?
RonB
I’ve been trying to open that discussion at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler…that there are not so many socialists out there as there are progressives. But, anyone who’s been there I guess knows the futility of getting anyone to listen there…they continue to believe that taxes are theft and the booga-booga socialists are trying to take over the country.
Bruce Moomaw
Yep. Since it’s now almost impossible to hijack an airliner to turn it into a weapon again (the passengers by themselves would probably tear you to pieces), and since it’s not all that easy to blow up a nuclear reactor in a really destructive way, the two deadliest non-nuclear and non-biological weapons which terrorists now have are (1) big cargo planes used as weapons (something Aviation Week has been bitching about for years, although no one is listening), and (2) blowing up either big chemical vats or big LNG tanks. I believe Mark Kleiman pointed out a few months ago that Boston has enough of the latter along its waterfront that a small band of determined terrorist could turn half the city into an inferno.
So what’s the Bush Administration’s reaction? Let us quote the Dec. 21 Washington Post:
“One stark example [f cronyism hurting the DHS] was the White House’s blockade of a Ridge-supported plan to secure large chemical plants. After Sept. 11, Whitman had worked with Ridge on a modest effort to require high-risk plants — especially the 123 factories where a toxic release could endanger at least 1 million people — to enhance security. But industry groups warned Bush political adviser Karl Rove that giving new regulatory power to the Environmental Protection Agency would be a disaster.
” ‘We have a similar set of concerns,’ Rove wrote to the president of BP Amoco Chemical Co.
“In an interagency meeting shortly before DHS’s birth, White House budget official Philip J. Perry, who also happens to be Cheney’s son-in-law, declared the Ridge-Whitman plan dead.
” ‘Tom and I would just throw our hands up in frustration over that issue,’ Whitman recalled.”
They should, of course, have done a lot more than throw up their hands; but then throwing one’s hands in private seems to be moderate Republicans’ idea of the most effective possible response to outrages by Rove, Cheney & Co. Isn’t it nice, though, that we have such a solidly anti-terrorist administration? As Kevin Drum said the next day:
“This is the most infuriating aspect of George Bush’s approach to terrorism: that he treats it as a partisan weapon instead of a genuinely serious business. Chemical plants really are a prime target for terrorists, but Dick Cheney doesn’t want to annoy his corporate pals, so EPA’s plans to address it get shelved. WMD counterproliferation really is important, but it’s not very sexy and doesn’t serve any partisan ends since Democrats support it too. So it’s ignored and underfunded. Detention of enemy combatants when the enemy is an amorphous group like al-Qaeda is a genuinely vexing issue that deserves a serious bipartisan airing, but the Justice Department treats it like a child’s game, inviting barely concealed rage from a conservative judge [Luttig] who thought this was supposed to be life-and-death stuff.
“One of the worst results of all this is that because George Bush treats terrorism mostly as a handy partisan club to make Democrats look weak and cement his own support with his corporate base, he’s managed to convince a lot of liberals that the whole thing [really] is just a game. Unfortunately, this is pretty understandable. At this point, I don’t really blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a Republican bogeyman that’s pulled out whenever the president’s poll numbers are down. After all, that’s pretty much how Republicans treat it.
“But it’s not. Osama bin Laden really would like to find a way to kill a whole bunch of us, and we really should all be working to keep that from happening. Maybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that’s more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley and his 30-year Republican reign.”
Let me add that elected Democrats also ought to be screaming about this in chorus. Maybe they’ve finally, if belatedly, begun to do so, and to realize that defense against Megaterrorism really IS an important political issue that is never, ever going to go away again.
Sojourner
Ah Bruce. You worry too much.
I’m sure that Bush’s phone snoopers will catch any terrorist act before it can happen. Just like 9/11 when they were warned ahead of time and they were then able to intervene…. Um, never mind.
Barry
OCSteve Says:
“I mean willing to use military force where necessary.”
Bush has used it where not necessary, or desirable, deliberately, for partisan gain. That’s an ‘F’, with expulsion for treason.
“Not treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue.”
It is far more that, than a conventional military issue. Particularly when the SoD is thinking of his beloved high-tech videogame war, rather than boots on the ground in the real world.
Again, the grade is ‘F’.
“Not lob a couple of cruise missiles at a few tents and call it a day.”
Steve, this earns you an ‘F’ for lying. 70 cruise missiles at where you just were at is what most honest people would call a serious assassination attempt. And Clinton kept some subs ready for the next time. Bush, of course, pulled them off. And Bush, in the past four years of the ‘War on Terror’, with a far freer hand, and more urgency, has failed so miserably that he has resorted to spinning OBL as non-important. He gets an ‘F’.
“Not give the corrupt UN the final word on things. No cut-n-run from Afghanistan or Iraq.”
If you don’t want that, perhaps the war should be conducted competantly.
“Iran and Syria are serious problems likely to face the next administration.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve, *Iraq* will be a serious problem facing the next administration, the way that things are going.
“I think there is a good possibility that Syria will be reformed from within. I think there is a good chance that military intervention will be required with Iran.”
‘Military intervention’? Perhaps with ‘surgical strikes’?
Perhaps ‘regime change’?
After scr*wing up Iraq like crazy, it’s now harder to deal with Iran, in any way which doesn’t leave the US worse off.
Steve, ridiculousness like this, asking for the Democrats to perform far better than your own party, is the reason that Democrats aren’t interested in your vote. We know that we won’t get it, under any plausible circumstances. You’re in that 30% of the American voters who’d support Bush all the way down.
Bernard Yomtov
John,
They are concerned, up to a limit – the degree to which the cost of damage to the plant is borne by them rather than someone else. Once you get past that, they have no further concern. So if a terrorist attack on a plant is going to cost the plant’s neighbors a lot of money it is not economically sensible for the plant owners to take that into account in deciding how much to spend on precautions. This is one reason we need government regulations.
Tony Dismukes
Would anyone care to offer a reasoned defense of the idea that terrorism is more susceptible to being dealt with by military means than by law enforcement? Because I just don’t get it.
Terrorism is largely carried out by relatively small groups of wrongdoers, who use secrecy and surprise as their greatest weapons. If you gathered up every single member of al-Qaeda, together with every weapon they owned, they wouldn’t constitute even a large fraction of a respectable army. Their effectiveness is pretty much reliant on the fact that we don’t know exactly who they are, where they are, or what they’re planning to do next.
To my mind, the proper tools for dealing with a small, secretive, geographically scattered group of bad guys are espionage and law enforcement. International cooperation between law enforcement agencies of different countries would seem like an especially important element of the solution.
The military, on the other hand, is all about bringing overwhelming force to bear on a known target. Since it’s difficult to apply that force without causing a certain amount of unintentional death and suffering to innocent bystanders, this option should primarily be reserved for cases where someone else is threatening us with military force.
If the Soviet army had ever invaded the U.S. (a la “Red Dawn”), I would want the army, navy and air force defending us, not the FBI. On the other hand, when unknown individuals blow up an abortion clinic or a federal building in Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center, I want our best law enforcement agencies on the case. Seems like the right tool for the job.
Can OCSteve or someone else explain why I’m wrong?