Dan Frisa
Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Just yesterday the Times lead editorial said it all:

"Mr. Bush has talked of renouncing the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty so that he can quickly build a missile shield. . . . Moscow has resisted, concerned that abandoning the ABM Treaty would allow America to test advanced defensive technology that could one day blunt Russia's nuclear missile force."

What, for goodness' sake, is so terrible about that?

Remember, the U.S. is only intent on building a defensive capability, able to shield against incoming offensive missiles.

Russian President Putin has stated that U.S. deployment of NMD would cause Russia to arm its nuclear arsenal with multiple warheads and to begin anew the arms race! (As if they could afford it.)

In an absolutely remarkable admission, Putin showed his duplicity on the issue when asked about questionable Russian sales of weapons to Iran. NBC News reports that "while Russia argues against a new arms race, the Kremlin has sought to justify its policy of selling arms and nuclear technology to countries like Iran, a longtime foe of the United States. On Monday Putin said the arms Russia sells are purely defensive weapons." (Emphasis added.)

What a crock.

Too bad if Russia feels that their ability to attack the U.S. would be curtailed or, hopefully one day, eliminated.

The fact that the left and its comrades in the media continue to act as shills and defenders of Russia (and China, for that matter) is a position close to treasonous.

Advocating that the U.S. should allay foreign concerns by reducing our ability to defend ourselves is outright lunacy.

That would be like installing a burglar alarm to cover only the front door and windows and leaving the rest of the house vulnerable to entry and attack, because criminals demanded so.

Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Of course not. So why fall prey to the calls of the apologists for totalitarian regimes whose only concern is that their own ability to visit devastation and threats upon us would be negated?

The false argument, that we should be bound by the 1972 ABM Treaty, must be rejected out of hand because the other signing party – the Soviet Union – no longer exists. The U.S. cannot and should not be held to an international agreement with an entity that has no legal standing.

The left continually puts forth this contention as a stumbling block to U.S. implementation of NMD, which would have been prohibited under provisions of the ABM Treaty, which was based on the theory of mutually assured destruction.

The president has forthrightly announced that with the Cold War behind us, new approaches need to be embraced to secure the peace.

He is correct and he is determined to ensure that U.S. policy will reflect this enlightened worldview.

After having engaged in their reprehensible and underhanded attempts to besmirch the president's intellect and ability, the left and the media may one day realize that George W. Bush is more thoughtful, and has a superior grasp of the important issues, than they will ever have, which is the ultimate irony given their penchant for condescension and self-delusion.

It is refreshing to finally have a leader who actually has convictions and has the courage, as well, to stand by them. This, even in the face of the mindless and baseless chatter from those whose motives are questionable at best.

E-mail Dan: danfrisa@newsmax.com.

Dan Frisa represented New York in the United States Congress and served four terms in the New York State Assembly.

Read Dan's last column: Interview with Missing Intern's Mom

Join Dan Frisa on the air! All times Eastern: