Dr. No,’ Meet President Yes’

(Washington, D.C.): Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold what amounts to a pep rally for the campaign its chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, is mounting to oppose President Bush’s efforts to defend America against ballistic missile attack. As the lead editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal, makes clear Sen. Biden is “Dr. No” with respect to pursuing development, test and deployment of missile defenses incompatible with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The Journal editorial echoes a call issued yesterday by the Center for Security Policy for President Bush to ensure that the Joe Bidens of the world are not able to infer, interpret or otherwise impute to the somewhat nebulous understanding reached on Sunday by Mr. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin a U.S. commitment not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, as Sen. Biden put it on Sunday, “anytime soon.”

Fortunately, shortly after the Center urged Mr. Bush to confirm that he is, in fact, “President Yes” when it comes to his determination to deploy missile defenses as soon as technologically possible (as required, by the way, by law), “W.” did just that in remarks at a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. He emphasized in particular that the discussions he has directed take place with the Russians are not to going to be of an open-ended nature and that America will be defended, with or without the Kremlin’s assent:

…I have told President Putin that time matters; that I want to reach an accord sooner, rather than later; that I’m interested in getting something done with him. That’s my first priority. The American people, our friends and allies, and others should take me for my word when I said in the campaign, and since being the President, that I will consult with our friends and allies, that I will work with Russia.

But make no mistake about it, I think it’s important to move beyond the ABM Treaty. I would rather others come with us, but I feel so strongly and passionately on the subject about how to keep the peace in the 21st Century, that we’ll move beyond, if need be….

…It’s a treaty, of course, that — from which either party can withdraw with ample notice. And I can understand why he wants time. And I’m going to give him some time. But I also want to emphasize to you that time is of the essence. It is time to move beyond. It is time to begin the research and development, which we have yet to do — the research and development, constrained by the ABM Treaty, to determine that which is feasible….

…And since I feel so strongly, if we can’t reach agreement, we’re going to implement. It’s the right thing to do. It’s what I told the American people we’re going to do. It’s what I’ve explained to our allies that we’re going to do.

Further evidence that the President’s determination to proceed is having a salutary effect at home, as well as abroad, is to be found in today’s New York Times article headlined “Democrats Try to Work Up a Shield Plan of Their Own.” According to the Times, a group of former Clinton national security officials are working with “centrist” Democratic Members of Congress to come up with a damage-control plan. It seems that many in the Democratic Party are finding it increasingly uncomfortable — read, untenable — to be simply “issu[ing] critiques of Mr. Bush’s plan” a la “Dr. No” Biden.

Unfortunately, the Democratic plan seems to be basically a “bait-and-switch” scheme — serve up a different, less capable missile defense program that could “defend the country against very limited attacks from small nations like North Korea or Iran, but that would not be extensive enough to undermine the deterrent power of Russia or China’s nuclear arsenals.” Sounds a lot like what these “experts” tried to do when they were in office during the Clinton years. The product was billions of dollars expended in a desultory development of the so-called National Missile Defense (NMD) program, a hugely expensive system that would not defend all of the United States or any of its allies and would take years to bring on-line.

Whether opponents of missile defense are honest about their stance or disingenuous about it, as long as Mr. Bush remains “President Yes” — pressing forward with the perfection and deployment of militarily efficacious and cost-effective defenses — he will prevail with overwhelming support not only from the American people, but from the majority of their elected representatives of both parties.