REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Monday, November 20, 2017

Pressing The Reset Button On Our Missile Defense

by Amo (writer), New York, March 10, 2009

While the nation focused on the economic crisis, President Obama and company quietly redefined our national security, to the determent of every American citizen.

Vice President Joe Biden at the annual gathering of world leaders in Munich, Germany announced a sharp reversal of the Bush policy by stating "The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance,"

He continued; "It's time, to paraphrase President Obama, to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should work together”.

 The “reset button” Vice President Biden was referring to came days later in a letter from President Obama, to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that referenced our missile defense program, and Obama’s willingness to scrap the program if Russia would somehow intervene and perhaps discourage Iran from continuing on their quest to acquire nuclear weapons.

To suggest that this president is simply naive is a monumental mistake. In truth its youthful arrogance combined with a disregard of historical reference, that I fear will eventually be the undoing of this administration, and perhaps our nation.

My sense is that President Obama unlike his predecessors views America as a flawed society and a nation that needs to adjust its core principles and values, we’ve already witnessed his economic vision for America, so it should come as no surprise that he’s now willing to trade off our national security for what he considers a “greater good”.

However, before President Obama trades off our security, perhaps he should take a walk down to 120 Liberty Street, in lower Manhattan and reacquaint himself once again, to what took place in 2001, on a beautiful sunny September morn.

Imagine if you will any leader in the world willing to trade off its countries defenses for an obscure promise from former adversaries and hostel regimes?

It would be unimaginable, and yet that is what President Obama is willing to do. To gamble once again on the future of America and its citizens, however, this time not in dollars and cents, but rather on life and death.

The irony to all of this is that this is a president who embraces technology, yet is willing to scrap perhaps the most important piece of technology, a defense shield that could potentially save thousands if not millions of lives. I have no idea why the leader of the free world would willingly feed into the paranoia of the Kremlin and scrap a purely defensive program that was also offered to the Kremlin, by the Bush Administration.

Rather then promote a missile defense program, to safeguard nations and its people from hostel regimes; our illustrious leader is willing to trade off on our security. Perhaps he truly believes he’s “THE ONE” and all he would need to do, is merely raise his arms (if the unthinkable should happen), and protect us all from incoming missiles.

Short of that, this president took an oath…”to protect and defend”, this nation, that’s his responsibility, and to that end there is no compromise.

Our economy will eventually rebound, irregardless of who’s in charge, however our national security is paramount if we are to survive as a people, and I fear that this president simply doesn’t get it, and may not be up to the task of protecting our nation.

Hopefully a better informed populace will press the “reset button” on this administration, come next election, and not make the same mistake again.                



About the Writer

Amo is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

3 comments on Pressing The Reset Button On Our Missile Defense

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Amo on March 10, 2009 at 06:04 pm

Good afternoon Dean, We need to stop meeting like this, what will the neighbors think? Sorry, just a little bit of my insanity showing…where do I begin?

Dean, with all due respect, this administration is spending trillions of dollars bailing out lousy businesses that cooked the books, and you’re concerned who pays for OUR MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM…I would imagine if a rouge nation got their dirty little hands on a few nukes and had the ability to send them. We’d be the first on their hit parade, that being case…I think you’ll agree that’s money well spent as for NATO...let’s not and say we did.

The one draw back about cherry-picking history is that if one goes back far enough in time, we can make almost any point we want, for example…your comment and I quote.

Nonetheless, I wish the former naive president did a better job of national security during his tenure”.  

I suspect you were referring to President Bush, however if I take that same comment and move it down the line, say to President Clinton, and the first World Trade Center bombing, one could suggest and perhaps make a convincing case that if President Clinton used all the resources at his disposal at the time of the bombing in fretting out who, what and where…perhaps 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

Of course we can move it down still a little further, say to the Carter Administration, and that hostage crisis that lingered for over 450 days, I think its safe to suggest that Iran wasn’t exactly a benevolent society back in the day...but of course we all have short. memories.

Regards,

Amo    

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Amo on March 10, 2009 at 08:20 pm

Hey Dean…I have quotes too!!! I’m just kidding with you…however this might be of interest, read on.

Amo

An increasingly bold series of terrorist attacks targeting American interests was met with tough talk from former President Bill Clinton but little action, according to terrorism experts asked to analyze the U.S. response to attacks between 1993 and 2000.

Larry Johnson, formerly with the CIA and the State Department and the current CEO of the Business Exposure Reduction Group, said he believes Clinton's weak response to the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency paved the way for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

"The Clinton administration paid lip service to the notion of combating terrorism through some money added, but generally kept it as a very low priority," Johnson said.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing

On Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people and injuring thousands. The bomb caused extensive damage to the complex. Osama bin Laden is suspected to have been behind the attacks.

Despite his rhetoric, Clinton made no changes in policy to prevent additional attacks, Johnson said.

"From the time President Clinton took office until May of 1995, a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39, sat in the National Security Council, in the In Box of one of the officials with no action taken. The significance of PDD 39 is that it was the document defining what the missions and roles were of combating terrorism," Johnson said.

"Despite what happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, the Clinton administration did not finally act on [PDD 39] until after the attack in Oklahoma City," Johnson said, referring to the 1995 attack in which an American, Timothy McVeigh, detonated a bomb outside the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing

On June 25, 1996, terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more.

Shiite militant terrorists with connections to bin Laden are thought to have been responsible for the attacks.

1998 Embassy Bombings

On Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 people. More than 5,000 were injured.

The attacks were blamed on bin Laden's terrorist group, al-Qaeda, which by this time had developed into a worldwide network.

2000 USS Cole Bombing

On Oct. 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni port of Aden. The bomb killed 17 U.S. sailors. American officials quickly linked the attack to bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Global News Wire reported Clinton's response:

"If, as it now appears, it was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act," he said.

The Bush administration, according to Johnson, is handling the issue differently since Sept. 11. However, Johnson is waiting to see if Bush will keep his promise to continue the war on terrorism even after the campaign in Afghanistan is over.

"Bush is now drawing the line in the sand and going after the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. The proof will be if he goes after the next terrorist camps, which are in Lebanon. Those are the largest terrorist camps," Johnson said.

Robert Maginnis, vice president of policy at Family Research Council, said, "There seems to be a willingness to confront the adversaries by Bush no matter where they may be and to keep everything on the table.

"This president has been serious. 'We are going to take everything that we have and whatever it takes will be available for the commander on the ground.' But Clinton seemed to have been so hesitant about using the power that was available to him to go after the bad guys. That, I think, sent the wrong sort of signal," Maginnis said.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By Amo on March 16, 2009 at 10:41 am

Dean, with all due respect, it’s interesting how you casually dismiss Clinton’s 8-years in office and the 4- attacks while he was in office, and focus on Bush’s 9-months. Your logic somehow escapes me. Here’s a president that for 8-years in office did nothing to stop the terror attacks that directly targeted Americans and American interests, at one point he actually had Ben Laden in his cross-hairs, and refused to pull the trigger, yet you focus on Bush. Why would I take Madelyn Albright’s assertions on anything?

My God, she’s a partisan and served in the Clinton Administration, what is she going to say? That she dropped the ball, that the Clinton Administration when it came to protecting us failed BIG TIME! I don’t think so.

Now getting back to Obama…please read my next article, I think you’ll enjoy it. I’m sure you’ll take me to task!

Regards,

Amo  

 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x