|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Kerry on the Record: NMD, When Yes Means No Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.comEditor's note: This is Part 9 in a series revealing the Democratic front-runner's track record on the important issues of the day.
Part 1: POWs and MIAs
The short answer is that Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is in favor of a national missile defense system (NMD). After all, it is politically incorrect to suggest otherwise. Most Americans are in favor of some kind of missile shield – even while understanding the prodigious costs and technical challenges involved. That said, the real Kerry-on-the-Record reveals him to be at best skeptical and less than enthusiastic about this ultimate weapon system. The all-but-frocked Democratic candidate for president strongly opposed the Bush administration's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty – a move construed by many as a clear condition for getting NMD off the ground. Currently, Kerry is standing squarely against the administration's plans for an early deployment of missile defense capabilities. Some pundits have suggested that this apparent ambivalence on the part of Kerry – as well as comrades like Tom Daschle, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd and Dick Gephardt – is tantamount to saying you support NMD when in fact your many and profound reservations render your support meaningless. Through the years, Kerry has invariably tempered his "support" for NMD with a peppering of qualifications. For example: "[I'm for] an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers." And during congressional testimony: "Just think: We could expend billions, upset the strategic balance, initiate a new arms race, and not even get a system that withstands remarkably simple, inexpensive countermeasures." Or this clumsy nugget from 2000: "What is defense, if it is sufficiently strong in defense, can actually become offense. And I don't think we've worked that through sufficiently and we need to." Kerry has more than once voiced the opinion that abandoning the ABM Treaty and proceeding unilaterally with NMD "is to welcome an arms race that will make us more vulnerable, not less." Pundits have cynically analyzed the potpourri of reservations held by Kerry and company, deciding that, in effect, critics such as he demand that any U.S. anti-missile system must meet some ill-defined but very exacting performance standard – but at the same time refrain from being capable enough to prevent Russia or China from being able to threaten to destroy this country. Furthermore, no matter what, the whole shebang must not cost too much to deploy – although the outer limits remain undefined. And then there's the oft-used rule of the road that as the United States tinkers with its NMD, it must not, heaven forbid, proceed "unilaterally." Voting Highlights Getting away from the dizzying suggestion that Kerry's simplistic "yes" can really mean "no," there are some voting highlights to examine:
The Durbin amendment was co-proposed by John Kerry, along with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and others. In any event, the Kerry team is not unmindful that the Bush camp will soon be unleashing its own TV ad version of Kerry-on-the-Record. The question of the hour becomes whether his Vietnam War record can inoculate him against the GOP charge of being soft on defense. Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director, recently spun to the Washington Post that Kerry's views on weapons systems "evolved" after he entered the Senate, noting that her boss supports "responsible and appropriate" military spending requests – including the recent Bush defense budgets. But in the political game, perception is everything. Unfortunately for Kerry, he is often perceived as a member of a group of liberal Congress members most likely to nitpick military and intelligence budgets. In 1997, the conservative Center for Security Policy awarded Kerry a score of 0 out of a possible 100 on 14 key defense votes – including funding for space-based laser programs. But as Ms. Cutter says, Kerry is evolving. When scoring key defense votes by Kerry from 1998 to 2002, the Center tallied the senator's column and got an unimpressive 25. National missile defense will certainly be another of those issues where the voter should be able to glean a distinct difference between the candidates. Kerry conceives of missile defense as a response only of last resort, when diplomacy and deterrence have failed. The senator from Massachusetts styles himself more as a deterrence and nonproliferation man: "Given that no missile defense system will be 100 percent effective, we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years. ..." Meanwhile, President Bush is in your face with his straightforward belief that a missile defense system is "essential" to the security of the United States to "meet the new threats we face." On Nov. 24, 2003, Bush proclaimed, "The spread of ballistic missile technology, along with the spread of weapons of mass destruction, is a terrible danger to America and to the world, and we must have the tools and the technologies to properly protect our people." The president's FY 2005 budget request includes approximately $10.7 billion for missile defense programs, with $9.1 billion allocated for missile defense programs through the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and another $1.6 billion for programs outside the MDA. Further, the Bush administration has cut the U.S. Air Force loose to proceed on a path toward "space control," which includes the development of both offensive and defensive counter-space technologies to achieve U.S. "space superiority." Not a lot of nitpicking there.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |