Sunday, May 19, 2002
Myriad commentators have been arguing that heads should roll as a result of the government's failure to heed advance indications that something like the 9/11 attack might occur. But as the New York Times reminds us, "[i]n recent months, officials have issued threat alerts regarding nuclear plants, financial institutions and even specific structures like the Seattle Space Needle and the Golden Gate Bridge". Why, then, aren't these pundits now advocating heavy-duty security measures to protect all of these alleged targets? And if, heaven forbid, one of the latter should suffer a terrorist strike in the near future, will the finger-waggers again be calling for government officials to pay the political price for the same complacency, in the face of vague or inconclusive reports, that they themselves are exhibiting today?