Keith Willshaw wrote:

Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography.
In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at
how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic
precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol
with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen
IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial.

I'm not certain that was a bad thing. Perhaps surprising when
coming from a location with terror activity, but not necessarily
from a domestic POV.

Once upon a time, a new President would open up the White House
to the citizenry and you could go shake his hand (and perhaps
try to get a job with the new administration). Security issues
deep sixed that quite a while ago.

Parking in front of the WH, or even driving down PA Ave is now
history as well, and on and on it goes.

One either under-reacts or over-reacts. Can't really say which
response is preferable, but it is certainly understandable that
with limited resources, you spend money where it will hopefully
have the best effect, and filling US airports with soldiers or
aircraft flights with undercover sky marshals, in a non-terror
environment doesn't seem a spectacular waste of money to me.

Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest
application of better security would have more than paid for
itself.

It's tough keeping a balanced perspective on what needs to be
done. The terrorists have all the advantages.


SMH