The Democratic nomination
Turning nasty
Barack Obama wins in Mississippi but his scrap with Hillary Clinton is getting uglier
THE Democratic race for the presidential nomination has settled into a pattern. Barack Obama gains momentum, and is nearly crowned the winner. Then Hillary Clinton wins a high-profile contest and makes a comeback, before Mr Obama builds up steam yet again. Mrs Clinton’s latest resurrection came with big wins in Texas and Ohio. But now Mr Obama is back. Over the weekend he won a caucus in Wyoming and on Tuesday March 11th he emerged as victor at a primary in Mississippi. He won both by margins of over 20 points.
Mr Obama's recent wins will no doubt gratify him and his campaign team. The victories vindicate further his campaign's strategy: leave no state uncontested, and rack-up support wherever it is to be found. It has allowed him to build a commanding lead of around 150 pledged delegates.
The Clinton team began spinning the two losses before they happened. Both Wyoming and Mississippi are deeply Republican states, which Mr Obama has no chance of winning in the election. According to Mrs Clinton, the states that matter are the big swing states that Democrats need to win in the autumn. These are Ohio; Florida, which she “won” in a primary in which nobody campaigned, since the state broke party rules by holding its vote too early; and Pennsylvania, which goes to the polls on April 22nd and where she likes her chances.
Her argument falls at several hurdles. The delegates she won in Florida will almost certainly not be counted. And although Ohio was a big victory, even a huge win in Pennsylvania would not make up her deficit in pledged delegates.
Both Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama will battle for support from “superdelegates”. These party bigwigs may vote for whom they choose at the convention. Hence Mrs Clinton’s parallel campaign to convince them that the rules of the game are tilted away from her unfairly. She says that caucuses, which Mr Obama has dominated, are undemocratic. Her team also complains of unfair press coverage.
Winning over the superdelegates with such arguments could be rough and divisive enough. Worse still, Democrats may get such arguments for all 42 days between the primaries in Mississippi and Pennsylvania. Bored and frustrated, the two candidates and their many surrogates could settle into mutually destructive trench warfare.
The nastiness has already begun. Samantha Power, an unofficial Obama adviser, had to quit after calling Mrs Clinton a “monster” in a newspaper interview. But more of the ugly stuff has come from the other side. Mrs Clinton has suggested, in an ad and in her comments, that she is ready to be commander-in-chief, as is the Republican nominee-to-be, John McCain, but that Mr Obama is not. Her spokesman compared Mr Obama to Ken Starr, whose investigations of the Clintons in the 1990s made him a hate-figure among Democrats. And last week, a newspaper printed comments by Geraldine Ferraro, a prominent supporter of Mrs Clinton, that are angering blacks, hitherto a solid Democratic-voting block.
Mrs Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1984, said that Mr Obama was only where he was in the race because he was black. Race being as ticklish a subject as it is in America, most politicians would retreat and praise Mr Obama when such comments caused a stir. Instead Mrs Ferraro said that the outcry made her a victim of reverse racism. A spokesman for Mrs Clinton has said only that she “disagrees” with Mrs Ferraro’s comments. The Obama team asks why, if Ms Power had to quit, Mrs Clinton does not disown Mrs Ferraro. And if she doesn’t, Mr Obama’s supporters may lash out in frustration.
A campaign that degenerates into name-calling and mud-slinging will hurt Mr Obama more than it does Mrs Clinton. He has campaigned on messages of “change” and “hope” so he faces an unenviable choice in the long run-up to Pennsylvania. If he lets the Clinton team fling the brickbats without retaliation she may set the tone of the campaign. But respond in kind and his message of a new politics is tarnished. Even though he is behind there in the polls, Pennsylvania cannot come soon enough for Mr Obama.
Spain's election
Back for more
The Socialist Party wins another term
SPAIN’S prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, may come to regard leading his Socialist Party to another election triumph on Sunday March 9th as one of the easier achievements of his second term in office. He did not win the absolute majority he so desired, falling seven seats short in the 350-member lower house of parliament. So Mr Zapatero must now seek backing from regional parties if he is to govern. And then he must turn his attention to the mounting economic problems facing Spain.
Mr Zapatero added a handful of parliamentary seats to the Socialist’s total, and maintained his 16-seat cushion over his conservative rivals, the People's Party (PP)—both parties won five more seats than in 2004. The big losers in the election were Spain's smaller parties, especially those with regional or separatist agendas.
Separatist parties jointly lost a quarter of their vote. The Catalan Republican Left suffered the worst collapse, losing five of its eight deputies. Spain's far left also imploded, leaving the United Left coalition with just two deputies. The two-party system that has emerged in Spain over the past three decades was strengthened, but not by enough to change the pivotal role played by larger regional parties.
Mr Zapatero now has the tricky task of building a governing coalition. An obvious partner is the moderate Catalan nationalist coalition Convergence and Union, which won 11 seats. The Basque Nationalist Party is a less attractive proposition—it only won six seats and is deeply unpopular elsewhere in Spain. A third possibility for Mr Zapatero is to try to cobble together support from several smaller left-leaning regional parties and the United Left.
All potential partners will want to extract a price, almost certainly in terms of a further decentralisation of power. But Mr Zapatero owes much of his victory to seats gained in the Basque country and Catalonia so may be wary of giving too much away. Many inside the Socialist Party reckons his attempts to talk peace with ETA, a violent Basque separatist group, and the increased powers he awarded to Catalonia turned undecided votes elsewhere against him.
There were hopes that, at the very least, the elections would lay to rest the demons released by the Madrid train bombings. Islamist terrorists killed 191 people in Madrid a few days before elections in 2004. This had a profound impact on the poll, with the PP unexpectedly evicted from government as Mr Zapatero won his first term.
Mr Zapatero’s second victory owes nothing to voters' horror at those attacks. “This victory was not an accident or a parenthesis nor a result of the bombings, as the more radical political right has so insidiously claimed for the past four years,” said El País, a left-leaning daily newspaper. The PP’s result also has nothing to do with its failed management of the bombings—it was thrown out after wrongly blaming ETA.
If terrorism had any impact on this election it was to encourage Spaniards to get to the polling stations. Two days before the vote ETA shot dead a former Socialist town councillor, Isaías Carrasco, in the Basque town of Mondragón. The very next day his teenage daughter called on Spaniards to react by voting en masse. That is what they did. Turnout was just above 75%.
The PP is deemed to have saved itself from the instant internal blood-letting that would have followed a more serious defeat. Nevertheless doubts remain over future of its leader, Mariano Rajoy. He has now lost two elections in a row but may stay on to continue the rebuilding of his party.
Mr Zapatero faces far more difficulties. He must build a coalition and then set about fixing Spain’s creaking economy. Inflation is running at 4.3%, a housing boom has bust, unemployment is growing and once robust growth is slowing rapidly. The measures he takes will depend, to a certain extent, on which party he chooses as a political partner in parliament. Ultimately, however, Mr Zapatero's own political will must drive reform. And with global financial turmoil adding to Spain's woes, the difficult bit is just starting.
U.S. Stock-Index Futures Drop; Humana, UnitedHealth Retreat
March 12 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stock-index futures retreated after Humana Inc. reduced its earnings forecast and concern grew that the Federal Reserve's plan to stem credit losses may not be enough to avert a recession.
Futures indicated the market will drop after posting the biggest gain in five years yesterday as investors reassessed the Fed's $200 billion plan. Humana, the second-largest provider of government-sponsored health plans for the elderly, tumbled 23 percent in trading before the open of U.S. exchanges. UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest health insurer, and Aetna Inc., the third-biggest, also declined. Caterpillar Inc., the largest maker of bulldozers, climbed after saying emerging markets will boost sales.
Standard & Poor's 500 Index futures expiring this month fell 2.6 points to 1,321.3 at 8:51 a.m. in New York. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures lost 20 to 12,170. Nasdaq-100 Index futures slipped 3.5 to 1,747. Stocks in Europe and Asia gained.
Health-care companies, the only group among 10 industries in the S&P 500 to retreat yesterday, dropped for the 10th time in 11 days after Humana joined rival WellPoint Inc. in lowering its forecast. The dollar fell against the euro and the yen and Treasuries rose as concern grew that the Fed's plan will fail to stem credit losses that have grown to $188 billion worldwide.
Humana tumbled $10.97 to $36.41 after cutting its 2008 earnings forecast for this year to a range of $4 to $4.25 a share from a previously projected $5.35 to $5.55. The company cited higher-than-anticipated claims volumes.
Aetna, which yesterday reaffirmed its earnings forecast, lost $1.90 to $40.75. UnitedHealth retreated $3.94 to $34.30.
The S&P 500 Managed Health Care Index of six companies dropped the most since Aug. 6, 1998, yesterday following WellPoint's forecast.
Caterpillar Forecast
Caterpillar rose $1.39 to $74. The company boosted its sales forecast for 2010 by 20 percent to $60 billion, exceeding analysts' estimates. Caterpillar also said it will benefit from efforts to improve public works in North America and Europe. Caterpillar has almost doubled sales since 2003 on demand from markets such as China, Russia and South Africa.
Citigroup Inc., the largest U.S. bank, slipped 9 cents to $21.40. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the third-biggest, lost 33 cents to $38.51.
Financial shares yesterday posted their biggest gain in eight years after the Fed said it plans to lend Treasuries in exchange for mortgage-backed securities and other debt that has plunged in value as homeowners defaulted on their payments.
Traders today increased bets the Federal Reserve will cut rates by 0.75 percentage point by their March 18 meeting.
Rally in `Jeopardy'
``If they liked what the Fed did they wouldn't anticipate as many rate cuts going forward,'' said Joseph Saluzzi, the co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading LLC in Chatham, New Jersey. ``If that's the case, then the rally from yesterday could be in jeopardy.''
Traders are now pricing in 66 percent odds of a reduction of three quarters of a percentage point, up from 62 percent yesterday and 54 percent a week ago. The rest of the bets are for a half-point cut in the rate, which is currently 3 percent.
Thornburg Mortgage Inc., the ``jumbo'' home lender struggling to meet margin calls, surged 53 cents to $2.09 after Bear Stearns Cos. upgraded its rating and said the company's chances for survival have improved.
The Annapolis negotiations process is on its deathbed. Lacking Palestinian street support and Arab backing, tainted with Iranian meddling and Sunni jihadism, Annapolis was DOA, dead on arrival, as this commentator sadly predicted, , ("After Annapolis", The Washington Times, December 1, 2007)
This week, Condoleezza Rice has attempted to rescue the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without achieving a firm commitment from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to return to the negotiating table – and without a clear commitment to Arab-Israeli peace from Saudi Arabia or other key Arab states.
However, the events in Jerusalem and Gaza clearly demonstrate that the fundamental issues are the lack of a viable Palestinian partner which can deliver peace as well as meddling by the rejectionist forces, from al-Qaida to Hezbollah, and from Tehran to Damascus.
A biased and misleading report on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, published on Thursday by eight British left-leaning international organizations, including Amnesty International, Oxfam, CARE International, etc., actually repeats Hamas' propaganda by blaming Israel for the near-disastrous situation on the ground in Gaza. In fact, Israel left the Strip in 2005, and it is Hamas which is trying to gain political capital by forcing the situation to deteriorate and provoking Israeli retaliation against terrorist targets, in which it often deliberately positions civilians to get hurt.
Hamas has allowed elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards of Iran and al-Qaida to gain a foothold in Gaza. The business of these organizations is global jihad, and Israel is but one front is that war.
Until the United States, the European Union, and the Arab countries understand this and translate the knowledge into policy, all negotiations will remain unreal, if not surreal.
Gaza and the attack in Jerusalem demonstrate Palestinian implacability toward Israel. The Western media has failed to cover the fact, disclosed by Israeli intelligence in a recent briefing to foreign ambassadors, that Hamas posts children on the rooftops of their rocket factories to prevent Israeli attacks. This is a crime against humanity as well as extreme child abuse.
As Israel drops leaflets, trying to minimize civilian casualties, Hamas orders kids to take up positions as human shields. Israelis end up either cancelling the air attacks – or killing kids and facing the world's indignation. As a rule, Israelis chose not to bomb. "We are working with our hands tied because we are part of the free world and because this is part of our values," a senior Israeli official says.
Rocket attacks from Gaza started in 2001. After the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and Israel's abandonment of the Egyptian-Gaza border as a result of U.S. pressure, the rocket attacks grew exponentially, with rockets, terrorists, manufacturing equipment and cash smuggled through the tunnels and the porous Egyptian-Gaza border (the so-called Philadelphi corridor) without obstacles. Hamas also smuggled in Russian-designed, Iranian-made, military grade multiple launch Katyusha rockets, the 122 mm. Grad.
Neither Egypt, nor Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, nor EU observers interfered. As a result, over 2,500 rockets have been lobbed against the town of Sderot, only seven miles from the Gaza border, and in recent weeks, also against the city of Ashkelon (population 120,000). Since the attacks started, one-third of the Sderot population left. Sirens and explosions sound every few hours, creating long term stress-related trauma among the majority of the population. Ashkelon also houses the second largest Israeli refinery, a power station, the regional hospital, and other strategic targets.
Currently, some 220,000 Israelis are in the range. Children in Sderot have been killed and maimed for life, with one eight-year-old boy losing his leg while his brother lost his arm. The younger boy will be wheelchair-bound for life. A father of four got killed at a parking lot in Sapir College. Houses are shattered daily, and with them lives of whole families. Obviously, a similar process is going on in Gaza when Israel retaliates, but with one key difference: if the rocket attacks stop, Israel will stop retaliating.
Many Palestinians today fondly remember how things used to be before the first intifada, when they held jobs in Israel and were capable of feeding their families, or during some years of the Oslo process, before Yasser Arafat decided to jettison it in the fall of 2000.
The solution is Gaza is simpler than many think. Hamas needs to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state; release the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been rotting in a Hamas dungeon since the summer of 2006; and stop its vicious propaganda on TV and in schools and mosques. Kids and adults should not be brainwashed on how to kill Jews and Americans world-wide. In the longer term, Hamas needs to transfer its weapons to the Palestinian Authority; cut ties with Iran and Syria; and cease its existence as a terrorist army. It should become a political party.
Arab countries which do not want to see Hamas-like Islamist movements spread to their own bailiwicks need to put pressure on Hamas to cease its terrorist attacks. They need to convince Hamas and Fatah to concentrate on rebuilding the civilian infrastructure in Gaza, not on more rocket production and smuggling. Hamas' sponsors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE should halt any financing unless the organization abandons the path of terror.
The European Union and other countries should not condemn Israel for conducting self-defense against irregular terrorist combatants, who violate international humanitarian law day in and day out. Those who live in glass houses – and are likely one day to conduct their own retaliatory operations against terrorists – should not malign a fellow embattled democracy which is fighting for its survival. Otherwise, yesterday's gory scene in Jerusalem is likely to be repeated in London, Amsterdam, or Paris.
Finally, if all else fails, and Israel is forced to launch a massive anti-terrorist operation in Gaza, the EU and the U.N., Russia and China, as well as the moderate Arab states, should stand prepared to launch post-war reconstruction and support moderate Palestinian forces who will hopefully pursue peace – not to derail Israeli self-defense operations.
The alternative is to grant victory to Iran, Hamas, and the forces of global jihad – and deliver a defeat to the Palestinians, Israelis, the Middle East, the U.S. and Europe. This is not something Washington and its allies should tolerate.
The Foundry
Morning Bell: Stop Playing Politics With U.S. Security
- Posted March 10th, in Protect America.
It has now been 22 days since the House of Representatives asked for a 21-day extension to pass legislation that would bring U.S. intelligence law into the 21st century. This is on top of the 15 days they asked for and were granted on Feb. 1. In total the House has had 214 days since the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was temporarily reformed on Aug. 5, 2007, to prove to the American people that they are serious about national security. We are still waiting.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has told Congress that our intelligence services “have lost intelligence information … as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act.“And what is the big issue delaying House action? It is not a concern for civil liberties. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill that addressed the civil liberty concerns of all but the most leftist members of Congress. The House is willing to put our nation’s security at risk so that trial lawyers and anti-Bush activists can pursue lawsuits against the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11. Besides the campaign cash from trial lawyers, House liberals refuse to compromise because they do not want to be seen as caving in to President Bush. The House has failed miserably in fulfilling campaign promises to end the war in Iraq and they are desperate for a victory over the the Bush administration. The far-left liberal base wants Democrats to run on this issue this fall.
The left does not care what the cost of their narrow political interests are on national security. Former CIA official and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) adviser John Brennan recently told National Journal: “I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity. They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context. I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that’s the right thing to do.” Brennan went on to advise the next president:
My advice, to whoever is coming in, is they need to spend some time learning, understanding what’s out there, inventorying those things, and identifying those key issues or priorities that they have — FISA or something else. They need to make sure they do their homework, and it’s not just going to be knee-jerk responses.
House members needs to get over their Bush hatred, do their homework, and put the nation’s security first. They need to pass permanent FISA reform now with protections for telecom companies.
Quick Hits:
- New modeling by scientists in favor of draconian cuts to carbon emissions shows humans would have to cease carbon emissions altogether in a matter of decades to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures.
- India’s energy consumption is expected to quadruple over the next 25 years and its carbon-emissions are already the fourth largest in the world.
- Due to rising energy demand, the Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that the U.S. will have to build 50 new reactors over the next 30 years to continue producing 20% of the nation’s electricity.
- Canada warned the U.S. that alternative fuel mandates in the Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 could limit development of that country’s oil sands making “$106 a barrel” oil “look cheap.”
- California businesses may eventually have to shell out billions to pay for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s global warming plan, but for now the state can’t even figure out how to pay for the plan’s first $55 million setup costs.
Cheney Marks 25th Anniversary of Strategic Defense Initiative
Vice President Cheney commemorated the 25th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in a speech tonight to The Heritage Foundation (video below). Reagan’s nationally televised address from the Oval Office on March 23, 1983, changed the course of history, challenging scientists to build a missile defense system to protect America from foreign attack.
Looking back on Reagan’s famous speech, Cheney noted that opinion leaders and some American politicians dismissed Reagan’s vision at the time. Only years later, however, did the speech’s impact become clear — rattling Communist enemies in the Soviet Union and accelerating the end of the Cold War.
There was simply no way the Soviet Union was going to defeat an America so confident in its purposes and so determined to defend itself against nuclear terror. This outcome alone is enough to place Ronald Reagan among our greatest presidents.
Cheney opened tonight’s speech on a lighter note, poking fun at himself.
An invitation from the Heritage Foundation obviously is very special, only more so when it provides an opportunity to talk about Ronald Reagan’s visionary Strategic Defense Initiative. I’m sure Ed Feulner thought, well, if we’re going to talk about Star Wars, we might as well invite Darth Vader.
UPDATE — March 12, 9:10 a.m.: The complete text of Cheney’s speech is below.
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION DINNER COMMEMORATING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF PRESIDENT REAGAN’S STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE
Four Seasons Hotel
Washington, D.C.
7:00 P.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Ed, I appreciate the kind words, and the opportunity to join all of you this evening, and the warm welcome. It’s always a pleasure to come back to Heritage. An invitation from the Heritage Foundation, obviously, is always very special—only more so when it provides an opportunity to talk about Ronald Reagan’s visionary Strategic Defense Initiative. I’m sure Ed Feulner thought: Well, if we’re going to talk about Star Wars, we might as well invite Darth Vader. (Laughter and applause.) I’m happy to accept. (Laughter.)
I see many friends in the room tonight. I’m reminded of a tribute once given to Ed and the supporters of the Heritage Foundation—comments that are still apt today. We are, quote, “unlucky in many things in our time, but among our blessings is the quality of those, so many of them here tonight, who have risen to defend our heritage. It is they whom we gather here to celebrate. Their industry, learning, wit, generosity: their passion for our country and its ideals.”
Those are the words of William F. Buckley, Jr., whose passing two weeks ago we still feel very deeply. Bill Buckley is himself now a cherished part of our national heritage, and the writings he left behind will inform, enlighten, and amuse for generations to come. We’ll never again meet anyone quite like him. Last year Bill published a book of his correspondence from National Review, and included an exchange of letters with a man from Illinois named Kelly. Each was only one sentence in length. First came this: “Dear Mr. Buckley: Your syntax is horrible.” (Laughter.) Then Bill’s reply: “Dear Mr. Kelly: If you had my syntax, you’d be rich.” (Laughter.)
Bill Buckley was always an eloquent, cheerful combatant in the battle of ideas. And he was never more eloquent or effective than when he defended American ideals in the decisive years of the Cold War.
There was, Bill Buckley said, a single “conclusive factor” that protected America from Soviet aggression in the 1980s. That factor was the character of President Ronald Reagan. (Applause.) With Reagan in the White House, Buckley said, the policymakers of “the Soviet Union [knew] that the ambiguists with whom [they] so dearly love[d] to deal [were] not in power [during those crucial years.]” And no one could doubt the confidence of America’s leader, or his utter determination to protect the freedom and security of the American people.
This is one of the reasons that average Americans always trusted Ronald Reagan—even the keepers of conventional wisdom—even when they viewed him in contempt. My friend, Lou Cannon, who covered Reagan for more than 30 years, has noted that many who once looked down on the man now admire him—that even Mikhail Gorbachev calls him a “very great political leader.” It’s the consensus view now—but as Lou Cannon points out, “it was always the view of the guy in the bar.”
Americans also trusted Reagan because he knew—they knew he trusted them. He believed in the basic decency, patriotism, and common sense of this country. And like his hero, Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan always took his case directly to the people in plain and forthright terms. He once said, “When all you have to do to win is rely on the good judgment of the American people, then you’re in good shape—because the American people have good judgment.”
I’ve always thought that for Ronald Reagan, his faith in the American people was like a suit of armor. It allowed him to enter the toughest debates with confidence—knowing that he might be assailed, but trusting that things would come out right in the end. And he certainly showed that confidence during the extraordinary month of March, 1983.
Twenty-five years ago today, the speech announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative was still being drafted. But in political and diplomatic circles, the news media, and academia, everyone was talking about a speech Reagan had given three days earlier. In Orlando on March 8th, the President had labeled the Soviet Union the “focus of evil in the modern world,” and gave a powerful rebuttal to those who advocated a fad called the nuclear freeze. “I would agree to a freeze,” Reagan said, “if only we could get a freeze in the Soviets’ global desires.”
The President argued the competition of the superpowers was not a chess game between two moral equals. Rather, it was a critical chapter in the age-old conflict of good versus evil. To “call the arms race a giant misunderstanding” and declare “both sides equally at fault,” he said, was to “ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.” And he refused to yield to those who would “place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority.”
Not surprisingly, the speech filled the front pages, and the editorial pages. And much of the commentary ranged between scornful and brutal. Elite opinion was perhaps best captured in the words of a prominent historian who said, quote, “It was the worst presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all.” (Laughter.) I know that historian. (Laughter.)
But years later, we would learn how much the speech had actually rattled the confidence of the Soviet leadership. And after his release from the Siberian gulag, the dissident, Natan Sharansky, told of the joy and the hope that Reagan’s comments had brought to his fellow captives. They had spread the word to each other throughout the prison, even using the toilet pipes so the guards wouldn’t hear them. At the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan had spoken the truth and insisted on moral clarity—and in doing so he brought comfort to the afflicted and shamed their oppressors. Today, a quarter-century afterwards, it’s clear that in Orlando, Ronald Reagan gave one of the best and most significant presidential speeches in history.
And then came the speech of March 23rd—another pivotal moment, and the reason for our gathering here tonight. From his desk in the Oval Office, President Reagan announced an initiative to build strategic defenses for the United States—with a system to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles in flight. He noted that the doctrine of nuclear deterrence—preventing aggression by the promise of retaliation—had been successful. And yet he regarded deterrence as “a sad commentary on the human condition.” The human spirit, he said, “must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence.” So he challenged the scientific community to undertake a long-term effort—which he candidly said would probably take decades—to “give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”
Once again, Reagan had committed an offense against orthodoxy—and once again criticism was sharp and dismissive. The New York Times said Reagan’s vision was a “pipe dream, a projection of fantasy into policy.” Some critics took another tack, saying such strategic defenses would be inherently destabilizing. Such was the logic of many in the establishment—the notion that a purely defensive measure against nuclear-armed missiles would be a threat to others.
As for the Soviets, they walked away from arms control talks after Reagan kept his pledge to deploy Pershing and cruise missiles in Western Europe. But SDI had gotten their attention, and they sought a return to the bargaining table in order to undermine President Reagan’s policy. When the President met Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Gorbachev demanded that the United States commit to never deploying SDI. Reagan refused.
Some believed Reykjavik was a public-relations disaster. The President could not have cared less. He went on national TV and said he would never shrink from his responsibility to defend the American people. At Reykjavik, Reagan said, “Everything was negotiable except two things: our freedom and our future.” It was without question one of the finest hours of his presidency, or any other.
History moved swiftly after that. As Soviet leaders tried to prevent the collapse of a militarized economy and a costly totalitarian empire, they eventually gave up their demands on SDI, Gorbachev and Reagan agreed to eliminate mid-range ground-launched missiles with the INF Treaty, and then in 1991 came the START Treaty and the end of the Cold War.
Reagan’s vision of missile defense surely helped accelerate our victory in the Cold War. There was simply no way the Soviet Union was going to defeat an America so confident in its purposes, and so determined to defend itself against nuclear terror. This outcome alone is enough to place Ronald Reagan among our greatest presidents. (Applause.)
The world has changed dramatically since the Reagan years. There is no more Soviet Union, and Russia is no longer an enemy. Yet President Reagan would also recognize the other dangers that have emerged, and the urgency of defending ourselves against those dangers. Yes, he would say, the world has changed, but the need for missile defense is still great. And today America does have a President who is strongly committed to a full range of ballistic missile defenses to protect America, our friends, our interests, and the peace of the world.
One of the obstacles President Bush pledged to remove was the old ABM Treaty, signed in 1972. The Treaty was out of date, and one of the signatories no longer existed. And over the years, as weapons technology progressed, the ABM Treaty put unrealistic and unsafe restrictions on our ability to defend America. I remember this from my time as Secretary of Defense. We would be thinking ahead to the biggest challenges of the 21st century, and the proliferation of ballistic missiles was always high on the list. And it was clear that the ABM Treaty was going to tie our hands in the years ahead.
The Treaty did permit either party to withdraw on six months’ notice. But politically that wasn’t so easy to do. Several generations of arms-control experts were highly invested in the ABM agreement. They were convinced that American withdrawal would bring nothing but bad consequences. But in 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a promise to build missile defenses, and in 2001, he made the wise decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. It was an act of great courage, and it opened the way for major advances in our ability to stand up a defense against missile attack. (Applause.)
The decision made even more sense in light of the attacks of September 11th. As President Bush said, 9/11 “made all too clear [that] the greatest threats to both our countries come not from each other, or other big powers in the world, but from terrorists who strike without warning, or rogue states who seek weapons of mass destruction.”
To protect ourselves, we have to understand the world as it is—and to face our challenges squarely. In 1972, nine countries had ballistic missiles. Today, it is at least 27 –- and that includes hostile regimes that oppress their own people, seek to intimidate and dominate their neighbors, and actively support terrorist groups. On the Korean peninsula, we all want to see the six-party talks conclude in the complete, verifiable dismantling of Kim Jong Il’s nuclear weapons. Yet the fact remains that North Korea today is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile with the potential of striking the American mainland with a nuclear warhead. The North Koreans also today possess a large force of missiles that threaten America’s closest allies in Asia and our forces deployed in the region.
North Korea is one of the world’s most active proliferators of ballistic missile technology. Pyongyang is a missile supplier to rogue regimes that have provided arms to terrorist groups, whose increasing military capabilities, combined with their aggressive intentions, pose a growing danger to the peace of the world.
Iran is engaged in a long-running effort to build up its missile forces and capabilities. This includes North Korean assistance on medium-range ballistic missiles. Existing Iranian missile and rocket capabilities already threaten U.S. forces in the Middle East, as well as Israel and our Arab partners. Tehran continues to develop technologies that could lead to its building an ICBM capable of striking the United States—perhaps as soon as late—in the next decade. Given all we know about the Iranian regime’s hatred of America, its vow to destroy Israel, and its ongoing efforts to develop the technology that could be used for a nuclear weapon, that is a danger every one of us must take seriously.
Syria is receiving assistance from North Korea in building up its missile forces. And Iran has used Syria for years as a transit point to build up the military capabilities of the Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah. As we saw in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah now possesses a sizeable rocket force—one that many analysts believe could be capable of targeting some of Israel’s major cities. And, of course, as we have all seen in recent weeks, Tehran may increasingly be turning its sights to inflaming the situation in the Gaza Strip, now controlled by the terrorist group, Hamas. In Gaza, crude, home-made weapons meant to terrorize Israeli civilians are being augmented by more advanced, longer-range weapons that are clearly smuggled in from outside.
It’s plain to see that the world around us gives ample reason to continue working on missile defense. In the ongoing political campaign, there’s been discussion recently about 3 a.m. phone calls. (Laughter.) We all hope that a commander in chief never has to pick up the line and be told that a ballistic missile is heading toward the United States. In such an instance, catastrophe would be minutes away. And the best tool we can leave to a future commander in chief is a weapon of defense to blow that missile out of the sky. (Applause.)
When President Bush and I took office, our country had no capability to defend the American people against long-range ballistic missiles—and, we believed, not enough money was going into R&D and testing of potential defenses. And so, after retiring the ABM Treaty, the President acted to make missile defense operational. Instead of waiting for the perfect shield, he decided to begin deploying capabilities as soon as possible, and then add to it in the future as technology progresses. By the end of 2004, we had an initial capability in place to defend against limited missile attacks by rogue states, or an accidental launch. And missile defense technology continues to advance. The Patriot system that we all remember from the Gulf War is still in use, but is now much improved, and our sea-based Aegis missile defense system continues to perform very well in its intercept test program. From tests we’ve conducted in the Pacific, we now believe we have a credible measure of protection against long-range threats from Northeast Asia. The next step is to deploy long-range missile defense in Europe, to protect our friends and allies.
There is still a great deal yet to accomplish in the field of missile defense. But we’re a lot farther along than we would have been if Ronald Reagan hadn’t set this effort in motion 25 years ago. At the end of his address to the nation, Reagan said, “Tonight we’re launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There will be risk, and results take time. But I believe we can do it.” Well, time has shown that he was right. We can do this. We are well along in making good on the promise of strategic defense. The project gathers together American idealism, American ingenuity, and American optimism. And that is an unbeatable combination.
Ronald Reagan’s successful presidency is testimony to the power of ideas to shape events. Our 40th President understood the impact of words fitly spoken and truths plainly stated. He knew that a speech can make a difference—but he also knew that conviction, perseverance, and confident action are what truly carry the day. President Reagan didn’t lead to see—didn’t live to see his vision fulfilled, and he didn’t expect to. But we’re getting there. And it’s already a better world because of the things he said and did as President of these United States.
So this evening it’s most fitting that we recall some of his greatest contributions to the security of our country. The nation is forever proud of Ronald Reagan. And we’re filled with gratitude for his lessons, and for his legacy.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario