the Left’s new history on missile defense
That’s Rep. Ellen Tauscher’s line on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning– liberal Democrats have always supported missile defense. Hogwash. The LibDems have spent over two decades demonizing those of us who do support missile defense. The NoKo bomb has changed the LibDem tune. That’s good, but please, let’s not try and change history — the history of hysterical opposition to strategic missile defense. (Tauscher comes on about 2 hours into the show. Two hours and one minute into the program. Her comments on missile defense crop up about 2:25 into the show. Toggle forward at the C-SPAN site.)
Tauscher says she’s for a “missile defense system” that works. Hah. These folks have fought funding and testing tooth and nail. She’s also something of a “unilateralist” when it comes to diplomacy vis a vis North Korea. (Engage North Korea!) Sheesh.
Get a load of this speech from Nancy Pelosi in 2003 (hat tip Hugh Hewitt)
Pelosi’s key quote:
“The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile.
“What we need is a strong nonproliferation policy with other nations to combat the most serious threat to our national security and to the safety of the world – weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists who would smuggle them into our cities.
Caught. In cold type. Pelosi is Tauscher’s boss, and fellow California Democrat.
Here’s a more coherent and honest discussion of missile defense and its history.
All the sudden the Dems are bullish in missle defense… Austin Bay calls them on it and he has a link or two to prove it.That’s Rep. Ellen Tauscher’s line on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning– liberal Democrats have always supported missile defense. Hogwash. The LibDems have spent over two….
Trackback by Dawnsblood — 10/11/2006 @ 5:08 pm
[…] Austin Bay: the Left’s new history on missile defense That’s Rep. Ellen Tauscher’s line on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning– liberal Democrats have always supported missile defense. Hogwash. The LibDems have spent over two decades demonizing those of us who do support missile defense. The NoKo bomb has changed the LibDem tune. That’s good, but please, let’s not try and change history — the history of hysterical opposition to strategic missile defense. (Tauscher comes on about 2 hours into the show. Two hours and one minute into the program. Her comments on missile defense crop up about 2:25 into the show. Toggle forward at the C-SPAN site.) […]
Pingback by FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Missile Defense Watch: The LEFT’S Revisionist History on Missile Defense — 10/11/2006 @ 6:51 pm
I remember this debate from the 70’s during the developement of the original ABM system and the liberals were fierce opponents of the system. I was interested on general principals and also because my farther was a senior manages working for one of the main contractors. I asked him at the time if the system worked and he replied that one of the baleful consequenses of securities laws was those who know can’t talk and those who talk can’t know. It was clear at the time that the Russians were terrified of the system — their “fishing boats” observed all the tests carried out in the Marshall Islands. The US later traded full implementation of the system for strategic arms reductions. Years later I revisited the topic with my then retired farther and he fessed up that the system was in fact very effective, but that it would have bankrupted the US to try to implement a significant deployment. The Russians of course knew of the technical capabilities and had learned the hard way not to underestimate US economic and technical power. So, the deal we cut with them at the time was probably a shrewd one. The arguments against ABM continued through the Regan administration until this day and always from the usual suspects. It would be incredible if they were now allowed to rewrite history. The red herring they will resort to will always be that they opposed systems the did not work. But no system ever satisfied them — and may even so called scientific commentators claimed that the concept itself was technologically impossible. Sometimes proponents of ABM fell into the trap of saying that we owe the American people a shield against attack — implying of outright stating that it should be bullet proof or near to it. This too is a fallacy. The key notion is deterence. That means creating uncertainty in the mind of a potential aggressor. In the cold war that meant creating uncertainty in the minds of the Soviets that any first strike could be effective enough to prevent an annihilating response. In today’s world it means creating uncertainty in the minds of rogues like the norks that they will be able to inflict any damage at all — even a weak shield can create this uncertainty. So they gamble the possibility that they might take out a city versus the certainty that 30 minutes later their piss-hole of a country is nothing more than nuclear slag. Mark
Comment by Mark Weinburg — 10/12/2006 @ 7:14 am
I wouldn’t be too hard on Rep. Ellen Tauscher. For a Democrat, she has been a relative hawk. Not a Scoop Jackson, but a glimmer of hope. Rewriting history, however, diminishes her, and attributing perhaps her own beliefs to the wider Party should be beneath her. Good to call her on it. BTW, Nancy Pelosi is NOT her boss. Rep. Ellen Tauscher works for the people of her district, the ones who elected her. But little wonder that Pelosi asked her to speak for the party on this. That said, I’d vote for child-molesting Republican over her any day, assuming he attended his AA meetings. Â ED NOTE: You are right of course. Ultimately the people of her district are her boss. I used “boss” in a broader sense — Pelosi is the Democratic House leader. I should have said “Pelosi is her leader.” Good comment.
Comment by Whitehall — 10/12/2006 @ 7:51 am
After listening to to her, it sounds like she is for ’smarter’ ABM defense. I’m all for that, and as a result I’d like to see her suggestion. For starters, the CG modernization plan coming up in FY08 would be a great place to start. How about including AEGIS ABM defense upgrades on all 22 cruisers, and while we are at it, lets make sure the cruisers can perform ABM defense and conventional AAW defense at the same time, instead of the either/or capability the AEGIS defense ships have today. There are plenty of ’smarter’ options for ABM, the question for the Democrats is, will they put their money where their mouth is? uh huh,…
Comment by Raymond — 10/12/2006 @ 7:59 am
Of course they’re for a ‘missile defense that works’. They then tell us that the current system doesn’t work and will never work. So why should they be for that? They want one that works. They’ll be all for that but they won’t fund the research as in the past thirty years. So we’ll never have one that ‘works’, but they’re all for it. Do I get my diploma now, Mr. Orwell?
Comment by Steve White — 10/12/2006 @ 8:09 am
No different than them claiming to have been part of the unified front against Communism during the Cold War.
Comment by Robert Crawford — 10/12/2006 @ 8:20 am
…or having favored doing something about Hitler BEFORE Germany attacked Russia. Same ol’ same ol’.
Comment by Old Grouch — 10/12/2006 @ 8:30 am
Remember that the dems and MSM coined the trem “Star Wars” as mocking of Reagan’s effort to develop the “Anti-Missile Defense System.”
Comment by Dennis — 10/12/2006 @ 10:00 am
Recent Democratic revisionism regarding the debate over missile defense is just another example of the liberal hostility to the truth.
Comment by TheMarine — 10/12/2006 @ 10:19 am
Call it what it is. Do not call it spin or revisionism when it is, in fact, lying.
Comment by Letalis — 10/12/2006 @ 11:28 am
Nancy Pelosi has been proven wrong three years later. Her failures of foresight have not caused problems with her in the minority, but what would they do if she were Speaker?
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 10/12/2006 @ 11:39 am
Reminds me of the Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Some of them were prosecuted for being “prematurely anit-Fascist.”
Comment by Whitehall — 10/12/2006 @ 11:39 am
I am shocked, SHOCKED that y’all haven’t mentioned the obvious. Obvious, at least, in the Clinton / post-Clinton era: “missile defense” does not equal “national missile defense” or “strategic missile defense” A (bare) majority of the Democrat caucus may well have “always” supported theater missile defense, such as the PAC-2 and PAC-3. They may well have supported THAAD, as well. When they controlled houses of Congress, they may well have authorized and appropriated barely enough money to keep strategic missile defense from being shut down altogether. None of those, of course, is equivalent to “the Democrats have always provided full philosophical support and financial support to the full process of developing and deploying strategic missile defenses”, which is what she may hope that people infer. And now, in one of the finer post-Clinton traditions, I really should listen to the C-Span telecast for content / context. It may well invalidate my theatrical parsing exercise. If so, then as Gilda Radner said, “never mind”.
Comment by Michael Garceau — 10/12/2006 @ 12:03 pm
I’m just waiting for the dem’s to start arguing that the reason the President’s missile defene system “dosen’t work” is due to the neferious influence of the faith-based creationists.
Comment by Sharkfin — 10/12/2006 @ 12:04 pm
I agree 100% that the Democrats have been against missile defense - from opposing it in Congressional voting to ridiculing the very concept by characterizing it as “Star Wars” when Pres. Reagan first proposed it in the 1980’s. But, I think you are off base stating that Nancy Pelosi is Ellen Tauscher’s boss. Pelosi is no where near Tauscher’s boss any more than Speaker Denny Hastert is Mark Foley’s boss. Yes, Pelosi and her party leaders exert ample muscle to keep Democratic caucus members in line to vote the party’s message (which, in this case, has been anti-missile defense), but she is not her boss. She didn’t hire Ellen Tauscher, and she can’t fire her. Neither Pelosi nor Hastert are responsible for the individual foibles of members of Congress. It’s a mistake to inflate the responsibilities of party leaders into areas that we, as members/followers/adherents/whatever of the Republican party, don’t believe are accurate, and have fought against on the merits. Otherwise, you’re right on the money. Good catch.
Comment by JohnG — 10/12/2006 @ 12:47 pm
Doh! Skimmed the comments before I posted. In my haste I didn’t see Whitehall’s post regarding the “boss” thing. Could have been more diligent. Mea Culpa.
Comment by JohnG — 10/12/2006 @ 12:51 pm
I don’t know what the hell Rep. Tauscher’s talking about. I’m a ‘libdem’ and so are some of my best friends
We knew Star Wars was stupid when Reagan proposed it and it’s even more stupid now. Quit fighting the last war! If N. Korea is going to use their bombs it will be on easy targets like our troops right there in spitting distance of the DMZ, not on Seattle. The danger with N Korea having the technology is them selling it, not a first strike threat. And whoever they sell it to will have no better method of delivering the payload the N Korea That makes Star Wars a rediculously expensive boondoggle, unless, of course, you have your money invested properly or the money is spent in your congressional district. Then, of course, it’s a beautiful thing! Cheers,
Comment by cmhmd — 10/12/2006 @ 1:11 pm
Here is a statement by Tauscher from her website about missile defense after 9/11 (March 24, 2002): http://www.house.gov/tauscher/issues/op-ed-missiledef-03-24-02.html Key quote for me is: “… the onus is on the administration to prove why billions of dollars for missile defense makes sense in the post-Sept. 11 world.” Doesn’t she worry about NoKo missiles hitting her district in CA? They haven’t perfected long range missiles yet, but what else do they have to do in that country? ED NOTE: Great find. Thanks for the link and comment. Â
Comment by Dr.C — 10/12/2006 @ 4:15 pm
[…] Courtesy of Austin Bay: […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » the Left’s new history on missile defense — 10/12/2006 @ 5:43 pm
“… the onus is on the administration to prove why billions of dollars for missile defense makes sense in the post-Sept. 11 world.†No, Madam, the onus is on you and your ilk to prove how we will be safe if we follow your advice and choose not to defend ourselves! I’d say you have a tough row to hoe there.
Comment by Sherlock — 10/13/2006 @ 1:10 pm
This is always such a foolish discusion. If the numerous tests done on missile defence were promsing, it would be a diffirent matter, but they have been enormous failures. This is like debating whether or not to use Green Lanterns Ring in a war..we dont have it, so why worry about it. There is a school of thought that goes, a man who thinks he has a bullet proof vest is alot less wise than one who knows he doesnt have one.
Comment by drlloyd11 — 10/13/2006 @ 5:37 pm
Sherlock: I know Republicans like to think we have an unlimited budget (esp. when lining the pockets of big campaign contributers), but we don’t. I know, maybe we can use the Paris Hilton “death” tax money for Star Wars! You know, cause otherwise, some moron estate planners would tell these zillionaires to donate it to charity or something stupid like that. Cheers,
Comment by cmhmd — 10/16/2006 @ 9:37 am
[…] Someone tell Nancy Pelosi her European pals are worried. And they want ABMs. (Scroll through the post to find Pelosi’s quote. Also look through the comments and find Comment 19. Read the quote gleaned from Rep Ellen Tauscher’s site.) […]
Pingback by Austin Bay Blog » A NATO-Russia missile defense exercise — 10/18/2006 @ 11:17 am
[…] Former Clinton Administration Pentagon weapons tester Phil Coyle warns about protective coatings on a missile in boost phase. Yes, such a coating provides a potential anti-laser capability (which is why you layer a missile defense and back it with ABMs or space-based anti-missile weapons). I believe Coyle overstates the case, at least in operational terms (and there is a comment in the article about “abrasions” on reflective surfaces). Remember, Democrats (with a handful of exceptions) have a 25 year long political investment in dissing missile defense. (See this post for some very recent opposition by Nancy Pelosi.)  That said, the ABL could be oversold as a “cure all” for threats like those presented by North Korea. However, the Missile Defense gents are stressing the weapon system’s potential. […]
Pingback by Austin Bay Blog » Buck Rogers, call your office: Airborne Laser mounted on aircraft — 10/27/2006 @ 6:38 pm