Bush Renews Focus on (Reagan) Missile Defense - Kerry says wrong priority

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush18aug18.story
THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Bush Renews Focus on Missile Defense
He says critics of the system are 'living in the past.' Kerry's campaign says the senator backs the concept but not the 'near obsession' with it.
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer

August 18, 2004

RIDLEY PARK, Pa. — A day after tussling with Democrats over the future stationing of U.S. troops, President Bush focused on a years-old national security conflict Tuesday, charging that opponents of a satellite-guided missile defense system were "living in the past."

Bush has long backed such a system, which some critics deride as a technological boondoggle that will prove unworkable. But during a stop at a Boeing Co. defense plant near Philadelphia, Bush invoked the issue as a tangible difference on defense policy separating him from his Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry.

Engineers from Boeing, one of three contractors working on the $53-billion program, recently installed the first interceptor missile into a silo at Ft. Greely, Alaska, Bush told the crowd of plant employees and campaign supporters.

"It's the beginning of a missile defense system that was envisioned by Ronald Reagan — a system necessary to protect us against the threats of the 21st century," he said. "We want to continue to perfect this system, so we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world, 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down.' "

Opponents of the program don't understand the threats that lie ahead, he said. "They're living in the past," said Bush, who campaigned in 2000 as a supporter of missile defense and has doubled the project's funding despite objections from many Democrats. "We're living in the future. We're going to do what's necessary to protect this country."
<snip>

FOR THE RECORD: Kerry does not oppose a missile defense system in theory, but questions the priority the Bush administration has put on it. Kerry claims that adding 40,000 troops to the military and improving U.S. intelligence-gathering are more important to combat the threats facing America, as we continue development work so as to deploy in the future a national missile defense which we know will work.

[Racenut20]

1. This coming from a President who

Read about a goat to second graders instead of picking up the phone and ordering NORAD alerts after the WTC and Pentagon were attacked. And his Sec. Defense, who is supposed to be in that loop, says he was outside helping with the injured at the Pentagon (has that ever been confirmed by anyone?)

I don't think so.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. The contrast is stark

May 2001 -- Bush Said "Most Urgent Threat" Was Ballistic Missiles.

Bush: "Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the World's least responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world." (Bush, Address at the National Defense University, 5/1/01)

May 2001 - Kerry Said "Immediate Threat" was From Terrorists and "Non-State Actors."

Kerry: "But let me underscore that missile defense will do nothing to address what the Pentagon itself considers a much more likely and immediate threat to the American homeland from terrorists and from nonstate actors, who can quietly slip explosives into a building, unleash chemical weapons into a crowded subway, or send a crude nuclear weapon into a busy harbor." (Kerry, Speech on Senate Floor, 5/2/01)

<snip>

Kerry Recognizes Missile Defense is only Part of an Effective Defense Strategy. The administration's proposals will now go to Congress, which will debate whether to fund the project. Doubters include Senator John F. Kerry. "National missile defense is only one part of a comprehensive approach to national security, and the Bush administration seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time, attention, and money trying to make it law," the Massachusetts Democrat said yesterday. (Boston Globe, December 19, 2002)

As President, Kerry Will Build a Realistic, Effective Defense Against Ballistic Missiles. Regarding a sensible missile defense system, John Kerry has stated: "I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense. I opposed the Bush Administration's decisions to proceed with early deployment of a national missile defense system and to abrogate the ABM treaty, destroying an important arms control achievement while also doing damage to important international relationships."

Kerry Will Streamline Large Weapons Programs Such as Missile Defense To Pay For Larger Army-Will Add 40,000 Troops to Active Duty, Not Iraq. John Kerry will add 40,000 troops to the active duty Army to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts. Kerry will also emphasize electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a 'systems of systems' approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process, this proposal can be made budget neutral. (www.JohnKerry.com/issues/national_security/newthreats.html)

Kerry Wants to Shape National Defense to Defend Against Modern Battles-Not Unproven Missile Defense Systems. "Instead of over- relying on weapons and tactics to fight the battles of the past, against enemies out in the desert or on open seas, we must build mobile and modern forces to prevail against terrorists hiding in caves or in the heart of a city. We must broaden our capabilities to create a military ready for any mission, from armored battle to urban warfare to homeland security. Yes, we must invest in missile defense. But not at the cost of other pressing priorities. We cannot afford to spend billions to deploy an unproven missile defense system. Not only is it not ready, but it's the wrong priority for a war on terror where the enemy strikes with a bomb in the back of a truck, or a vial of anthrax in a briefcase." (Remarks at the Truman Presidential Library, Independence, MO; AP, 6/3/04)
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?ReleaseID=34851

[papau]

3. I wonder if US Media will notice the contrast?

:-(

[zbdent]

4. Question, how does a missile defense system guard against

a suitcase bomb?

Seems to me that there had been a lot of talk from the Right side of that fence a while back saying how we're not really concerned about the missiles so much any more (hence, the pull-out of the treaties) as much as Joe Terrorist with a small dirty bomb.

[bigtree]

5. The General Accounting Office cautions,

in a 40-page report released in Sept. 2003, that the Bush administration's push to deploy a $22 billion missile defense system by this time next year could lead to unforeseen cost increases and technical failures that will have to be fixed before it can hope to stop enemy warheads. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-12-special-interest-law_x.htm

The GAO report said the Pentagon was combining 10 crucial technologies into a missile defense system without knowing if they can handle the task.

The GAO report faults the stepped-up schedule proposed by President Bush for premature integration. "As a result, there is greater likelihood that critical technologies will not work as intended in planned flight tests," the GAO said, which could force the Pentagon to spend more funds than expected or "accept a less capable system". http://www.clw.org/nmd/rush2.html

Despite the GAO report, the Defense Department has budgeted approximately $10 billion a year over the next five years to fund the missile defense program, and appropriators approved $9.1billion to be spent next year on the system.

My take on missile defense:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=630702&mesg_id=630702