• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I think I may have finally figured out why President Clinton so
virulently opposes the United States developing SDI (Strategic Defense
Initiative). But as with so many other things, his reasons are
shortsighted, self-serving and detrimental to our national security
interests.

Though I don’t agree with it, I generally follow liberal logic on
most issues. But for the life of me, I’ve had the toughest time
comprehending this curious mindset that opposes a program so vital to
this nation’s security.

I’m tempted to apply cookie-cutter analysis, and just assume that
Clinton’s hostility to missile defense is a function of: a) his
predictable liberal sympathy for appeasement and his aversion to
policies that promote peace through strength and b) his preference for
social spending over defense spending.

Just look at the way he’s mollycoddled North Korea, rewarding them
for violating their agreement to discontinue their nuclear program. Or
Iraq, where he undermined UN inspection efforts to expose Saddam
Hussein’s relentless advancement of his nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons programs. Or China. … Oh well, you get the picture.

Without question, Clinton lacks the courage to deal forcefully with
real threats to this nation. His force is reserved for nations
defenseless against the U.S., such as Serbia. He seeks to pacify truly
dangerous nations with unilateral concessions, under the flawed notion
that totalitarian regimes will return kindness for kindness.

But there’s something more to Clinton’s resistance to SDI. He’s
afraid of rocking the international boat and mucking up his legacy
again. He wants to make as few waves as possible for apparent fear that
any tension, especially during his final year, will sabotage his efforts
at diplomacy and his various foreign policy initiatives, such as China’s
entry into the World Trade Organization and the Israeli-Syria and
Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

For all these reasons, Clinton is relieved that the Pentagon’s test
missile failed to hit a mock warhead over the Pacific Ocean two weeks
ago. That “failure” has bought him a little more time to delay his
decision as to whether to break ground on a missile defense system.

Publicly, Clinton pretends to support SDI. His administration is
“committed to the development of a limited national missile defense
system designed to counter emerging threats from rogue states.”

By the way, I’m not making this up. The Clinton-lionizing New York
Times tells us, “It should come as no surprise that in an election year,
politics — both domestic and international — are driving the
administration’s divergent public-private views on missile defense.”

Clinton’s handling of this issue is reckless at best. His fear that
proceeding with missile defense would jeopardize our relations with
China and Russia is unwarranted and misguided. Granted, those nations
both say that our pursuit of SDI will trigger a new arms race, but what
do you expect them to say? They know Clinton folds under such bogus
threats. In China’s case, they are charging full steam ahead to develop
stolen nuclear technology and their delivery systems, regardless of what
we do. While Clinton has been blocking SDI, they have been stealing our
nuclear secrets and missile technology. That’s Clinton’s appeasement
dividend.

This is deadly serious business, folks, and should be on the
front-burner in this presidential campaign.

Baker Spring, of the Heritage Foundation, warns that the situation is
urgent. “The expansion of the missile threat (from Russia, China and
rogue nations) has outpaced the development and deployment of missile
defense systems. Even under the most compressed timetables for the
deployment of the missile defense systems now under development, the
United States will continue to face a window of vulnerability.”

Spring charges that Clinton has dismantled the “robust missile
defense program he inherited from the Bush administration,” making the
American people increasingly vulnerable to missile attack by allowing
America’s defenses to lag behind the threat.

SDI was an integral part of Ronald Reagan’s vision and policies that
culminated in bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. We should
consummate that vision by resurrecting SDI — and not the watered down
land-based version being flirted with by Clinton, but the space-based
and sea-based rocket-zapping shield that comports with Reagan’s dream of
peace and security for this nation.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.