Nuclear, bio terror attack now "likely"

A bi-partisan commission, Chaired by former Senator Bob Graham, D-FL & Former Congressman Jim Talent R-MO, has concluded that a terrorist attack with bio or nuclear weapons before 2013 is more likely than not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102710.html?wpisrc=newsletter

This was the main issue for me in the recent election. I thought John McCain was more likely than Barack Obama to prevent such an attack. Already, the Democrats in Congress are calling for defense cuts to free up money for social programs. But if an A-bomb goes off in DC, the economy will go to 19th century levels (can you grow potatoes?). Civil liberties will be gone, as 98% of the public demands security over liberties. And the West will become so weak that efforts to resist the tyranny of Shari’a law, including subjugated status for women & non-Muslims, child marriages, the stoning of rape victims and honor killings, will make great advances around the world.

Which, of course, the terrorists know.

Ten terrorists armed with conventional weapons have just cost the Indian economy billions of dollars, while killing 200 people. Imaging five teams of four terrorists, easily brought in over our porous border, hitting a mall, a casino, an elementary school, a parade, the Super Bowl or a presidential inauguration. Five targets, all at once, spread around the country.

Now imagine what they can do to us with WMDs

In 1998, three years before 9/11, I published a column about what I called “The War on Terror.” It’s reproduced below. Note the highlighted areas. If I could see this in 1998, ten years ago, how come our elected officials couldn’t? Hint: They are more worried about the next election than the future welfare of the country. Both parties.

America’s War on Terror will be long, slow and cruel
Courier Post, August 28, 1998

Early in World War Two, a bitter joke went around Britain. Two Scottish soldiers, rescued from Dunkerque, are in a pub. “It’s going tae be a lang, lang war,” one Jock sighs.
“Aye,” says his mate, “especially if England capitulates and Scotland has to fight on alone.”
Our war against terrorism is going to be a “lang, lang war,” especially if our allies capitulate and America has to fight on alone.
The war is not new. It has escalated for years, as terrorists targeted Americans around the globe to serve their purposes. It grew out of the American defeat in Vietnam and the French defeat in Algeria. The third world learned that western powers with modern armies and advanced technology could be defeated, not on the battlefield, but by a long, slow, intensely cruel bloodletting that would break the political will of the people, without which a democracy cannot prevail.
That we are envied and hated in the world is no surprise. It has ever been the fate of rich republics. All terror needs is the conviction there is no atrocity that cannot be committed for the cause, no innocent blood, no act that is evil if it strikes at the enemy.
A man with a wild look in his eye, a pipeline to his god, and a weapon in his hand has ever been a danger. But the weapons now are explosives powerful enough to destroy buildings, snuffing out hundreds of lives.
Soon they will be gasses that can slaughter thousands, diseases that can kill millions. Perhaps even atomic bombs. And men like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein will use them without compunction.
They believe they can humble America by breaking our will to resist. It doesn’t matter if it’s Vietnam, or the Clinton scandal or the troubles with Iraq, Americans always want to “get it over with.” Can we prevail in a struggle that may last decades? Can we cope with the frustration, the horror, the cost? Or will we surrender when the terror has stretched out long enough, as our enemies believe?
They may be right. Saddam has apparently backed Clinton and the UN down, faster than even I predicted, by playing brinkmanship perfectly. He’s now free to develop diseases that can wipe out entire cities. Coming soon to a location near you.
How will we prevail when the alternative is to be killed and do nothing or be killed and strike back, escalating the killing? How can we defend ourselves? What must we do to survive?
First, we need a new president. Clinton reacted strongly and appropriately to the embassy bombings. I do not believe he took action to divert attention from his scandals. But that people think so points up the importance of the much-maligned “character issue.” Could the embassy bombings have been timed to take advantage of his perceived weakness under self-inflicted wounds? We cannot have a president who creates that opportunity for our enemies.
If we are to rally in this war, we need a president—probably a series of presidents—who have served in the military, who understand the nature of war, and who have the moral authority to lead us in desperate times. Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, who earned the Medal of Honor in Vietnam, and Republican Senator John McCain, a heroic POW in Hanoi, come to mind, but there are other Americans we can respect instead of snicker at.
Second, we must be willing to go after the leaders, to repeal the executive order against assassination. Somehow, the “Blame America” crowd convinced us it’s okay to drop bombs on his followers, but to put a bullet between bin Laden’s running lights would be immoral. What rubbish.
Third, we must be prepared to go after terrorists in countries we are not at war with, as Clinton has just done. TV news called the attack “unprecedented,” but it’s not. Nixon ordered the bombing of North Vietnamese soldiers in Cambodia to protect American troops, though we were not at war with Cambodia. Many believed this was immoral, that it was better to let American soldiers die than to kill their enemies when they were hiding over a line in the jungle.
Everyone who would rather have your family murdered than kill enemies hiding in a neutral country, raise your hand. Thank you.
Fourth, we must be willing to accept what’s called “collateral damage.” That is, innocent civilians will be killed, including children, when we go after terrorists. That’s the nasty price of war, created by those who attack us. And it will be on the evening news, with moralists condemning America.
Fifth, we must beef up the military, especially on equipment and special training for small groups of Marines and Army Rangers who can fight sharp, dirty actions against terrorists. Bombs and cruise missiles will not do all the bloody work. And we will have casualties, both military and civilian.
Sixth, we must increase our intelligence capabilities. The CIA must have the human assets—spies and assassins—to combat this plague for us. It will be war in the shadows, nasty and brutal.
Lastly, we must let it be known that any country that launches an attack with weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological or nuclear, or any country who harbors a group who launches such an attack, can expect us to use nuclear weapons to destroy them.
And we must mean it.