North Korea's detonation of what may have been a nuclear weapon reminded voters that while Congressman Foley's actions were disgraceful, they hardly represent the threat to world peace that a nuclear North Korea does.
North Korea followed up it's illegal and highly provocative act with threats to launch a nuclear armed missile at the United States if we failed to agree to their demands for direct talks.
One North Korean "spokesman" went so far as to say that: "the main theater [of war] will be the continental US, with major cities transformed into towering infernos. "
David Albright (relation to former Secretary of State unknown) a former UN nuclear inspector (bio), warned that Pyongyang may be further along the path of weapons development than commonly assumed. "I would not trust reports saying North Korea is not weapon-ized," Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, told CNN television.
Regardless of the debate among experts as to how advanced North Korea's missile and nuclear technology is, the question becomes: how well prepared is the United States to defend against a missile attack from a rogue regime like North Korea or Iran?
How long can we wait to complete development and deploy an effective defense against ballistic missiles?
It's a question that needs to be asked to every candidate for federal office in the 2006 election.
Were Democrats Against Missile Defense Before They Were For It?
In the wake of the North Korean explosion, Democrats who had hoped to continue talking about relatively trivial issues, while avoiding any accountability for matters that truly are life and death were forced to retool their rhetoric.
And predictably, some Democrats are now insisting they have been for missile defense all along. But, as with everything else they do, understanding their meaning of the word "for" like the meaning of the word "is" is important.
Take Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (DEMOCRAT-CA). Ms. Tauscher, a member of the House Armed Services Committee was on a C-Span call-in program this morning where she denied that Democrats have voted against missile defenses. Her answer defies reason considering her 1999 vote against a straightforward House Resolution supporting missile defenses.
Yet, Democrat antipathy and opposition to missile defense has been a long standing plank in their platform of anti-military opposition to nearly any and all defensive systems proposed by the U.S. military.
Their derision of "Star Wars" when President Reagan first proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative in March, 1983 (speech here) was followed by repeated attempts to curtail, cut or eliminate the program altogether. Never mind that the early program was essential in helping the U.S. win the Cold War and bring down the Iron Curtain. The Democrat rule is: if it's a Republican idea, we're against it.
That attitude continued into the 1990's even though President Clinton dropped his threat to veto further development of missile defense and the majority of Senate Democrats supported some continuation of the program. House Democrats in that same period continued to vote against missile defense. In 1999, 184 Democrats, including Tauscher, voted against a simple resolution which stated:
"It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack."
During the debate, Congressman John Lewis (DEMOCRAT-GA) implored Representatives to vote against the resolution stating: "I URGE MY COLLEAGUES, DO NOT CHOOSE BULLETS OVER BABIES, BOMBS OVER BOOKS, MISSILES OVER MEDICINE." No matter that the Congress has spent trillions in a "war on poverty" with no end in sight. Apparently, protecting failed liberal social programs is more important than protecting the lives of Americans.
Little Has Changed in the Bush Era
"The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile."
President Bush disagrees. During the 2004 campaign he stated:
"I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system don't understand the threats of the 21st century."
Liberal and progressive organizations which track votes on missile defense are an excellent resource for documenting Democrat's votes against missile defense. Both Progressive Punch and the Union of Concerned Scientists are only too happy to underscore Democrat opposition and obstruction to development and deployment of missile defenses.
It's important to note that should Democrats take control of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees in either or both houses of Congress, Democrats like Senator Carl Levin who have been at the forefront in opposing missile defenses would be in control.
In the final weeks of the 2006 campaign, every candidate for federal office should be asked for his or her stand on missile defense and whether they support the immediate deployment of that system before they take the following oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
No comments:
Post a Comment