Shooting Stars
`Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without success,' Winston Churchill once famously said. Perhaps. But the Japanese might have a different take, having now had North Korea fire a missile over their heads. In a world where Pathan tribesmen with rifles have been replaced by rogue states with ballistic missiles, Churchill would have been the first to argue that the leader of the free world needs more going for him then the other guy's bad aim. To wit, a missile defense.
If the events of the past few weeks have taught us anything, it is that the bad guys out there--Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong II, Osama bin Laden and the like--are not kidding when they threaten to blow up Americans. What we don't yet know is just how many of them have the capability to follow through on their threats, though recent tests by both North Korea and Iran confirm that some are not that far away. We shouldn't have to wait until a missile lands in Times Square to find out.
Unfortunately that is precisely what Democratic Senators have been doing. Back in March, GOP Senator Thad Cochran introduced a bill calling for the U.S. `to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense System capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack.' When the motion to move it to the floor for debate and amendments came up, it fell just one vote shy of the 60 needed. All 41 opposed were Democrats. While bin Laden bombs, the Democrats filibuster.
They have a chance to redeem themselves when the reintroduced petition comes up for a vote tomorrow. Events since the March 13 filibuster have tragically underscored just how irresponsible a move it was: India and Pakistan have exploded nuclear bombs; Iran and North Korea have tested ballistic missiles; Saddam Hussein has forced U.N. inspectors to a standstill; and bin Laden blew up two American embassies in Africa.
Indeed, it has lent a prophetic tone to the findings of the Rumsfeld Commission, a team of defense experts which in July warned that America's enemies could deliver a ballistic missile threat to the U.S. within five years of any decision to acquire such a capability. More ominously, the Rumsfeld report warns that `during several of those years, the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision has been made.'
In face of these tangible threats, the continued Democratic preference for arms control agreements in the bush over real defense capabilities in the hand is baffling. And our guess is that an American public that has now watched North Korea and seen for itself some of bin Laden's handiwork also would be a hard sell. We wouldn't be surprised, then, if these developments, coupled with a President suffering from a severe loss of moral authority, might lead some of these Democrats to consider whether they want to continue to block debate about ways to protect Americans--especially the 13 Democratic Senators up for re-election which follow:
UP FOR RE-ELECTION
Democratic senators who voted against closure on the American Missile Protection Act of 1998.
Barbara Boxer, California.
John Breaux, Louisiana.
Thomas A. Daschle, S. Dakota.
Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut.
Byron L. Dorgan, N. Dakota.
Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin.
Bob Graham, Florida.
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont.
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland.
Carol Moseley-Braun, Illinois.
Patty Murray, Washington.
Harry Reid, Nevada.
Ron Wyden, Oregon.
Source: Coalition to Defend America.
Bill Clinton might have his own second thoughts. It is worth asking whether Mr. Clinton could even have taken the limited action he did against sites in Afghanistan and the Sudan had bin Laden somehow managed to buy a missile of his own--or pay the North Koreans or Iranians to shoot one off for him.
Likewise, could George Bush have prosecuted the Gulf War if Saddam Hussein had had a missile capability? As Mr. Clinton has had impressed on him, just four or five warheads in hands like Kim Jong II's pose a far more immediate and practical threat to American lives and interests than the 2,000 or so in the Russian arsenal. Especially given North Korea's willingness to sell its missiles to anyone with cash.
Providing an American President with the wherewithal to shoot down a ballistic missile on its way to an American city shouldn't be a partisan issue. But if the Democrats decide again to make it one in the coming vote, that would be a persuasive Republican argument for a filibuster-proof Republican Senate. If we ever get a missile defense system this country needs, we may owe more to Monica Lewinsky and Osama bin Laden than we do to our Democratic Senators.
Is Boston near Cambridge?
A bin Laden with the first name of Yahia M.A. of 2 rue Charles Bonnet 1206 Geneva, Switzerland owns 13.52 % of a Cambridge company known as Hybridon.
It messes around with things like DNA,AIDS,HPV and viruses!
As in front company for biological warfare?
Camille Chebeir,President of Sedco Services,Inc which manages the investments of the Bin Mahfouz family of Saudi,is on the Board of Directors.
Mahfouz is one of the funders of our boy Osama!
Nicris Limited of Geneva owns 13.44 %.
Intercity Holdings of Hamilton, Bermuda owns 13.27 %
General Motors Domestic Group Trust has a 19.01 % share.
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America has a 16.63 % stake.
How utterly delicious to find a bunch of bin Ladens so near their house of biologicals!
Is Kennebunkport close?