Homeland Security Watch

Comment by William R. Cumming

February 3, 2010 @ 2:52 am

Well IMO item four should have been item # 1. Then cyber which really is rapidly enlarging as a WENN set encompassing critical infrastructure protection (in which far too much is wasted on physical security in resources as opposed to cyber) and business continuity.

I also would like to see demographics and migration moved up onto the top issues for INTEL to worry about as far as national security for US because after all it is not about jobs for the INTEL profession but security for the HOMELAND–passive and active defense, non-military and military defense, and as always the best overall employment of the possible resources to the protection of the nation and its people. And of course in reality the protection of the Constitution. At roughly $80 billion a year last year the INTEL community did not have a great ROI (return on Investment for the nation)! One example of an upgrade–hire more anthropologists.

Comment by Seymour Butts

February 3, 2010 @ 7:12 am

It is the Q&A, not the testimony that is getting all the attention. “Certain” of an “Attempted terrorist attack.” Reminds me of President Clinton stating it depends upon what the definition of “is” is. I think true, but alarmist if taken to the extreme – and Blair’s testimony does not attempt to enlighten the masses about the consequences of such an attack.

Blair states:

Third, while such attacks can do a significant amount of damage, terrorists aiming against the
Homeland have not, as yet, been able to attack us with chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear weapons. I discuss this issue more in my classified statement.