Posted on 09/14/2001 4:11:52 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
With smoke still billowing like a funeral pyre from the ruins of the World Trade Center, cries could be heard for vengeance against an unseen and unknown enemy who left no return address. Hunting down and punishing the "folks" who did these things will test the nation's patience, although it is far more important to be careful than to be quick. The thousands of innocent dead deserve justice, which tempers rage with reason. Should reliable information emerge proving the culpability of Osama bin-Laden and his protectors in the Taliban, the United States is fully capable of dealing with them.
In the days to come, we will hear much speculation about who is to blame for this atrocity, and fingers are likely to be pointed not only abroad but at home. The airwaves may soon be filled with torrents of nonsense rhetoric from politicians attributing fault to their partisan adversaries, speaking as if they knew how such an attack could have been prevented. They didn't, and they don't.
For the moment-and probably for some weeks to come-the appropriate attitude for citizens is to support the efforts of government officials at all levels to cope with the bloody consequences. If past American responses to acts of terrorism and war are any guide, the President can expect an upsurge of patriotic support; let us hope he uses that enhanced authority wisely.
Wisdom, in the wake of a momentous disaster, means the questioning of prior assumptions, prejudices and policies. Clearly, we will have to find ways to enhance the security of our society that don't destroy the liberty we seek to defend. But there are other issues to be considered. For George W. Bush and his administration, the ideas and initiatives that must now be reconsidered can be described as unilateralism. The notion of the United States as an impregnable fortress, with little need for treaties and allies, has become outdated again in a single day.
The most conspicuous symbol of unilateralism is the missile shield, or national missile defense, whose irrelevance to the present international realities has suddenly been revealed amid blood and fire. The so-called shield is, as one critic has said, "a weapon that won't work against a threat that doesn't exist." What happened on Sept. 11 demonstrated irrefutably that any enemy determined to inflict mass destruction upon America can do so without ballistic missiles. To insist on that proposal-at a projected cost of $100 billion-would be to waste time, money and scientific talent, when all those resources would be better spent on effective domestic and international security measures.
The apparent capacity of terrorists to penetrate our airports and airspace forces us to think about the unthinkable. If an enemy can bring down the World Trade Center and destroy a substantial part of the Pentagon, why would we assume that they could not someday drop a nuclear device on the doorstep of the White House? Attack by such low-tech means, instead of a high-tech rocket, would elude the missile shield. The only plausible defense against terrorist use of atomic weapons is to secure nuclear materials around the globe from those who might misuse them.
Yet so far, the Bush administration has shown little interest in the programs created for that purpose, notably in the former Soviet Union. Federal officials ignored recommendations by a bipartisan panel to sharply increase funding of those efforts, and even considered cutting them. For a tiny fraction of the price of the useless missile shield, the unguarded weapons and fissionable elements in Russia could be removed from danger.
Unfortunately, international cooperation has not been the outstanding characteristic of foreign policy in this administration or among its supporters in Congress, to say the least. Their contrarian viewpoint has been expressed in contempt for American obligations under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as well as for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that was so carefully designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Treaties and alliances, they appear to believe, are for weaklings and dreamers, when in fact such agreements are essential to our own future security. Preventing proliferation ought to be the paramount objective of American policy, and anything that destabilizes or deflects that aim must be avoided.
If we are really determined to safeguard our cities and citizenry, maintenance of our overseas alliances is the strongest shield. A jetliner could just as easily be hijacked from a foreign airport, and then flown into an American target, as from Logan or Dulles. Rather than aggravating our differences with allies in Europe and elsewhere, the administration should consider ways to strengthen those ties. Many of those nations have considerably more experience with terror on their soil than we do; their assistance in combating what may become a continuing assault is vital.
Improved relations with our traditional allies may also help us to convince them that a more aggressive approach to terrorist organizations is both realistic and necessary. The likelihood of success against the forces responsible for this extraordinarily well-executed crime will be considerably greater if civilized nations are coordinated with equal precision. The ability of the United States to lead depends entirely upon the confidence with which other nations regard us.
These suggestions scarcely reflect the present philosophy of the Bush administration-with the possible exception of Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose influence has been waning since the day he was appointed. But Mr. Bush wouldn't be the first Republican President to change course when confronted with previously misunderstood realities. His father's administration at first coddled Saddam Hussein, and then led an allied expedition against Iraqi aggression. Ronald Reagan vowed to build an even more ambitious version of the missile defense, to the horror of our allies, and then abandoned that mirage to negotiate historic agreements with the Soviet Union.
In this tragic moment, Mr. Bush too can seize an opportunity to correct his administration's course. All Americans should wish him the wisdom to do so.
You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.
Gosh that sounds familiar. Well, here it is again:
New fight against terrorism requires new rules--[Excerpt]-- We must deprive terrorists of a potential source of nuclear materials with which they could make a bomb. The morning of the WTC attack, The New York Times reported on the widespread smuggling of nuclear materials critical to bomb construction from Russia. I know from my personal dealings with Soviet nuclear facilities that much can be done, though the new administration proposed cutting back funding of this effort. Instead, as recommended by a blue-ribbon bipartisan panel last year, the United States and its allies should buy and secure the Russian post-Cold War surplus of nuclear materials, which will cost far less than the estimated price for ballistic missile defense. We should infiltrate and destroy all organizations seeking to construct nuclear devices, just as Israel saved so many lives by bombing the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s. A suicidal mission with a nuclear device in a plane or car or fishing vessel could level Manhattan, and change all of our lives again forever. [End Excerpt]
___________________________________________________________
What store do you go to to "secure" all the nuclear materials? Rubbish!
Today's oxymoron.
The missile defense shield is for incoming missiles...of which China has technology, thanks to Mr. Gets -his-cigar-sucked-while-he's-deploying-troops-to-Bosnia. Stick with the BS skills you honed in the EX-administration. You're outta your league with the grownups.
The answer is that despite the fact that the United States today is an extraordinarily secure nation, there are dangers on the horizon. In the future, potential adversaries, having learned from Saddam Hussein's mistakes during the gulf war, are unlikely to confront the United States directly. Instead, they are likely to resort to "asymmetric" strategies -- approaches that enable them to focus on U.S. vulnerabilities. A particularly dangerous asymmetric threat arises from the proliferation of ballistic missiles, especially if they are equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.
In 1998, the country received a wake-up call with the report of a commission headed by the current secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld. This report concluded that the lead time necessary for hostile states to develop ballistic missiles was much shorter than the Clinton administration was claiming. Shortly thereafter, North Korea and Iran conducted ballistic missile tests. In response to these events, Congress passed the 1999 National Missile Defense Act, which then-President Clinton reluctantly signed into law. [End Excerpt]
It is a war we must fight - and we will win.
Bed-wetters like Conason continue to dance on the graves of tens of thousands of Americans while they work to bring political gain to the klintons. Attacks like this will continue as long as:
1. We have tall buildings
2. We have large aircraft
3. We have enemies who perceive us as a country of spineless klintons and Conasons.
Unless we choose to give up 1 and 2, and therefore invite our enemies to rule us from a distance through cowardice, our only course of action is to kill those enemies.
If they had an ICBM today, does Conason think they'd spare us? Why hijack an airliner and kill 20,000, when you can press a button, and kill 20 million?
Conason is both stupid and cowardly if he thinks missile defense will only hurt us. There are people out there who hate us, and see these massive deaths as something good for their side. Conason and all the RATS are among them.
I know these aren't YOUR words, but I wanted to point something out. It seems that just a month or so ago, the liberals where chanting that the GWB administration was spending too little effort to help the Israelis. Now I have no problem with the Israelis, but seems the liberals have EXTREMELY short memories.
Apparently Joe Conason believes he's exempt from his own advice. What a marooooon! He strikes me the type of coward who would be the first to run and hide under a bed at the sound of a firecracker.
That was a ridiculous post.
....And BITCH because we didn't have National Missile Defense to protect his sorry butt.
LIBERALS have wrought this and they will never admit it.
When the U.S. is strong, the world is at peace.
More and more nations WILL have the ability to launch a ballistic missile at the United States. It is only a question of WHEN. They can be launched from ships at sea or near border areas making the identity of the perpetrator difficult to ascertain.
Folks we just lost thousands of lives and 20 Billion (AND COUNTING) from 2 jumbo jets.
What would the cost in lives and dollars be if two ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads had impacted in southern Manhattan?
BUILD IT DAMNIT!
My point. Every last one of the media I saw stated that part of the problem with nukes was the intimidation factor. So what if whoever did this had a nuke to back them up. How would we even be able to go about retaliation?
The reason to abandon NMD is that it's a sham. NMD is writing a big blank check to companies that defrauded us in the past. It does not work, and it will not work. Giving these billions and billions of dollars to defense contractors with no accountability is as foolish as giving those same billions to whataever asine social program Ted Kennedy wants to fund without accountability.
We are being duped by our own party on NMD, because NMD will fill the coffers of some of the President's biggest supporters. All politicians are politicians. Even President Bush.
So, no, don't advocate that the government stop throwing money into the black hole of NMD because of this event. Do it for the Right reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.