Are We More Secure?
Not really, not according to a bipartisan group of former U.S. officials. Spencer S. Hsu writes in The Washington Post:

Seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the federal government has made only limited progress toward preventing a catastrophic nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction abroad, according to a report card to be issued tomorrow by 22 former U.S. officials.

The bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America gave the United States an overall grade of C. The government received in total three D's, eight C's and seven B's in areas such as sustaining support of foreign scientists and governments, integrating programs to prevent nuclear terrorism and strengthening multilateral law enforcement efforts.

The group urged the next president to appoint a cabinet-level White House coordinator with the authority to direct counterproliferation plans, programs and funding "from day one." The panel was co-chaired by Lee H. Hamilton (D), former congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, and Warren Rudman (R), former senator and co-chairman of a 2001 blue-ribbon commission on terrorism.

"The threat of a new major terrorist attack on the United States is still very real," Hamilton, Rudman and former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), chairman of the 9/11 Commission, wrote in the report's introduction. A nuclear, chemical or biological weapon in the hands of terrorists was "the single greatest threat to our nation," they said, and concluded, "We are still dangerously vulnerable."
ad_icon

The report marks the latest effort by former leaders of the commission and other national security experts to re-focus efforts to counter weapons-of-mass-destruction threats after years of bureaucratic drift. In a similar report card issued in 2005, the Sept. 11 panel's successor gave U.S. counterproliferation efforts a D.

Hey, but if you're a little old lady in a nun suit, you can get felt up at the airport!