The Terrorists are Coming, Warns Missile Defense Lover Cheney

When Dick Cheney bellows about terrorist attacks in the US, it can only mean one thing: his beloved missile defense is under the gun.

With the din of the crashing economy, the bellowing of banking execs over frozen wages, and the thud of falling appointees, only one word rises above all the racket: terrorists. Specifically, terrorists attacking in the U.S.

Dick Cheney shouted out those words, yet again, in an interview with Politico, in which he predicts terrorist attacks of all sorts, soon, very soon, if Obama strays from the policies put into motion by Cheney and Bush. Much of the interview concerns Guantanamo and Cheney's legitimate concerns about what to do with those remaining in America's Cuban-based torture/er, aggressive interrogation, camp. But by pushing that "terrorists are coming" button is his interview, Cheney is doing far more than trying to save his reputation re Guantanamo and attempting to escape prosecution for torture.

His "prediction" is really about arms. Early word says Obama will slash the arms budget by 10 percent -- and Cheney's beloved missile defense program (the number 1 budget priority in the defense budget) is under the guillotine. Robert Kagan is already fretting about arms cuts and Cheney, without even naming missile defense, is once again laying on the terror button that allowed missile defense funding in 2001 -- funding that looked to be hacked as of September 8, 2001 -- but conveniently found full $8.3 billion funding just days later -- after the 9/11 attacks. The irony of course is that the money-sucking missile defense (it's eaten up hundreds of billions already) -- a system to shoot down incoming missiles -- rarely works (even in tests with decoys) -- and doesn't much help in battling terrorists, since they typically aren't lobbing over intercontinental nukes. But passed it was, in a post-9/11 display of invincibility towards terrorists the world over.

It's not the first time an enemy has appeared when missile defense was threatened: On August 1, 1990, Cheney -- then Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush -- was looking at getting his war budget whacked, including missile defense (his baby then too). Conveniently, the next day Saddam rolled in Kuwait -- and guess what, Cheney's budget for his new high-tech babies including his adored missile defense was fully funded, plus some.

I get into it at length (with more links) in today's previous blog.

Comments

[merger]

And what if for all the evil we accuse him of committing, and the hatred we have built for him in our hearts and minds; he turns out to be right and we didn't heed the warnings. We can't ignore the probability of another massive attack, and he isn't the first to warn us of this. We sometimes throw out the message because we don't like the messenger. We can't throw out the baby with the bath water. Our enemies have not gone away, and they will not go away because Obama is a great guy--and he is. We have sanitized the attack sites of 9/11 with memorials and construction. It all looks so normal, but I will never forget the horribleness of that day and the days following. I remember walking the streets around the World Trade Center a few days and weeks after. I remember the horrific smell of jet fuel, the heat coming from the fires, the feet of dust piled in stores with desperate messages written in the dust. The letters and signs posted everywhere starting with "Have you seen..." and "I am looking for.." I remember news people breaking down on camera,and I remember. I remember. We have grown at "ease in Zion" and we surely suffer again if don't remember and take proper actions. What those actions should be is left to people far smarter than I. I pray Pres Obama is successful, wise, and prudent.

[Robert McMonagle]

HERE IS A REASONABLE PLAN FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TO PURSUE ON MISSILE DEFENSE:

Why not call Putin's opposition to missile defense in order to gain the high road politically and in the media / world public opinion, especially given the rhetoric and symbolic actions that Putin has taken against the United States in Latin America and elsewhere? Here is my suggestion. President Reagan was quoted as saying he would have shared SDI technology with other countries once we had developed it (verify this in his interview w/ Hugh Sidey in the series on the Presidents and the Constitution @1989 interview). Publicly challenge Putin and say something like: "The United States is willing to enter into negotiations about sharing missile defense technology with Russia on one condition. They must demonstrate to the world that they are serious about promoting democracy both in their country and around the world (e.g. in Afghanistan and Iran)." This will present Putin with a dilemma, do nothing and weaken his position in the international community, or take some symbolic or genuine actions to move Russia into the democratic camp. The new American administration could then potentially neutralize Putin's saber rattling and perhaps give opposition parties in Russia a chance to compete.

Dr. Rob McMonagle (Neumann College, PA)