2006年VOA标准英语-Is US Safer Now Than It Was on 9/11?
搜索关注在线英语听力室公众号：tingroom，领取免费英语资料大礼包。
（单词翻译）
By Andre de Nesnera
Washington
08 September 2006
President Bush says the United States is safer now, five years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but some experts disagree.
On September 11, 2001, the United States was struck by the most devastating1 terrorist attack in its history. Two hijacked2 planes slammed into the World Trade Center towers in New York, destroying the two buildings. A third plane struck the Pentagon near Washington, while a fourth - due to the bravery of the passengers, who tried to retake control of the plane - crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Almost 3,000 people died in those attacks.
Subsequent investigations3 indicated that al-Qaida, a radical4 Islamic group led by Osama bin5 Laden6, was responsible for the assaults.
The United States has not had a terrorist attack on its soil since that September day five years ago. But since that time, terrorists struck other parts of the world, including Bali, Turkey, Madrid and London. And just last month, British police foiled an alleged7 plot to blow up commercial airliners8 bound for the United States.
In a speech this week in Atlanta, President Bush talked about the notion of safety.
President Bush delivers a speech on the global war on terror at a Georgia Public Policy Foundation event at the Cobb Galleria Center in suburban Atlanta, Thursday, Sept. 7, 2006 |
||
At the same time, Mr. Bush said, the United States will not be totally safe, until its enemies are defeated.
Experts disagree on whether the U. S. is safer now than five years ago. Danielle Pletka, from the American Enterprise Institute, sides with the president.
"But here is the question that I always like to challenge people back with, when they ask that question. And that is: were we more safe on September 10, 2001? We certainly felt safe, and we felt safe until eight o'clock that morning [September 11]. So, were we more safe? And do we have the information necessary to make those judgments11? Or, do we trust our democratically elected government and representatives to actually make those judgments for us. I think that is what we have to do. The fact that there hasn't been another attack does have meaning, and it cannot be dismissed," she noted12.
However, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense13 Larry Korb takes the opposite view.
"What has happened is, particularly with the invasion of Iraq, we have created a lot of al-Qaida wannabees, and there are more people now that are trying to do us harm than there were before we went into Iraq," he explained. "Certainly, some of the things we have done have made us safer, but on balance, we have created so many more potential attacks that I don't believe that we are safer."
Bush administration officials have rejected any suggestion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has made the United States and its interests and allies more likely targets for terrorist attacks.
Brian Jenkins is a leading authority on terrorism, working for the RAND Corporation. He says a much more difficult question to answer is, are we safe enough?
"If we look at the terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world since 9/11 and the targets that they have attacked - restaurants, nightclubs, hotel lobbies, train stations, subways - we would have to admit that those same categories of targets are vulnerable in our society," he said. "And so while we have increased security, we have to be realistic about that security and understand that we are never going to be entirely14 safe."
Jenkins says given the international dimension of the so-called war on terror, that struggle will go on for a very long time.
