[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Bush Budget weaken's DOE anti-terrorism protections







Viviane Lerner wrote:



>  http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13006

> HUFFINGTON: Penny-Wise, Dirty Nuke Foolish

> Arianna Huffington, AlterNet

> May 2, 2002

>

> If President Bush's goal is to make the United States a safer

> country, he's got an odd way of doing it. In a desperate attempt

> to trim the budget and minimize the projected $100 billion

> deficit, the Bush administration has slashed by 93 percent a

> Department of Energy (DOE) request for $379 million to better

> secure America's storehouse of nuclear weapons and waste -- the

> number one item on every terrorist's shopping list.

>

> What makes this latest bit of budgetary bloodletting particularly

> confounding is that it strikes at the heart of the president's

> highest priority. "Nothing," he proclaimed, "is more important

> than the national security of our country. Nothing is more

> important." Well, apparently something must be.

>

> Otherwise how can one explain the White House's massive reduction

> of funds that Bush's own Energy Secretary, Spencer Abraham, called

> "a critical down payment to the safety and security of our nation

> and its people"? The money had been earmarked for such essential

> front line items as fortifying protective barriers and fences at

> atomic storage sites, ramping up cyber security on Energy

> Department computers, and installing equipment to detect

> explosives being smuggled into nuclear facilities.

>

> We know from the diagrams, computers, and "Jihad for Dummies"

> manuals found in the bombed out caves of Tora Bora and

> Mazar-e-Sharif that the madmen of Al-Qaeda have their black hearts

> set on unleashing weapons of mass destruction on the people of

> America -- and would love nothing better than turning our own

> nuclear materials against us.

>

> The vast amounts of nuclear weapons and radioactive waste stored

> at Energy Department facilities are enough to make a terrorist's

> mouth water, but, evidently, not enough to stay the red pens of

> Mitch Daniels and the ruthless number-crunchers in the White

> House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who clearly have a

> very different definition of homeland security than the rest of

> us.

>

> The Bush administration has been shameless in its willingness to

> play the national security trump card to promote the things it

> most cherishes -- from tax cuts to drilling in ANWR to the drug

> war to subsidies for corporate fat cats. So it's more than a

> little ironic that when it comes to doing something that will

> actually protect us, the president is suddenly unwilling to put

> our money where his mouth is.

>

> "I have submitted a budget that prioritizes homeland defense and

> our national security," he announced grandly. "A budget that puts

> ample amounts of money in place.to respond should the enemy hit us

> again." Unless, of course, the enemy decides to hit us again by

> stealing enough weapons-grade plutonium to cook up a suitcase

> nuke.

>

> Imagine the devastation if suicidal terrorists were able to break

> into a DOE facility, quickly construct a down-and-dirty homemade

> atomic bomb, and set it off inside the lab, blasting tons of

> radioactive material into the atmosphere.

>

> "These labs," OMB director Mitch Daniels told me in defending his

> decision, "are probably the most secure sites we have. This was

> one place where Gov. Ridge and others have established that we are

> in pretty good shape. There are other places where more catching

> up has to be done."

>

> If the labs are in such good shape, why did the energy secretary,

> who after all has jurisdiction over the labs, not know about it?

> And if things are so peachy, how come, according to government

> documents unearthed by the Project on Government Oversight,

> federal agents posing as terrorists made it past security forces

> guarding nuclear labs more than half the time? Even though

> security officials were often notified that the mock attacks were

> coming, they still weren't able to keep the "terrorists" from

> claiming their deadly prize.

>

> Such sieve-like security is eerily reminiscent of the woeful

> results airport screeners chalked up for years in similar tests,

> routinely failing to detect knives, guns, and bombs before the

> horrors of September prompted Washington to finally get serious

> about airport security. Are we going to have to wait until we have

> a nuclear 9-11 before our leaders do all that they can to protect

> our nuclear sites?

>

> It's not like we're talking about an outrageous amount of money:

> $379 million to keep the ingredients of nuclear devastation out of

> the hands of mass murderers. That's only a few million more than

> the $250 million rebate the president's beloved rollback of the

> alternative minimum corporate tax would have given to Enron alone.

> And it pales beside the billions Bush wants for Star Wars.

>

> "The administration," says Rep. Ed Markey, a longtime critic of

> the security at nuclear facilities, "has requested almost $8

> billion for missile defense, which won't do anything to prevent

> suicidal terrorists from attacking nuclear facilities and blowing

> up dirty bombs or homemade nuclear weapons."

>

> Since the mid-90s, there have been over 50 reports, commissions

> and congressional hearings highlighting the vulnerability of

> America's nuclear facilities.

>

> It's well past time to stop the studying -- and start the

> spending. "We are storing vast amounts of materials that remain

> highly volatile and subject to unthinkable consequences if placed

> in the wrong hands," warned Spencer Abraham in goading the White

> House to loosen the purse strings. "Failure to support these

> urgent requirements is a risk that would be unwise."

>

> To say the very, very least.

>

> =========

> *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this

> material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed

> a prior interest in receiving the included information for

> research and educational purposes.***

>

>

> * NucNews Archives (by date) at http://prop1.org/nucnews/ *

>

>      *In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107*

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



--

Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave.,

Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537;  ncohen12@comcast.net

UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE:  http://www.unplugsalem.org/  COALITION FOR PEACE AND

JUSTICE WEBSITE:  http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org   The Coalition

for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.

"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you

win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?"  (Mary Chapin Carpenter)





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/