Words To Live By: Speaker Gingrich Asks Clinton To Use Speech To The Nation To Begin Protecting It From Missile Attack

(Washington, D.C.): In light of his considerable distractions at the moment, President Clinton
may be having a hard time focusing on the content of his upcoming State of the Union address. If
so, he should welcome suggestions that would not only make this address to the Nation one of the
most memorable in recent times, but also one that might be remembered as a step that actually
helped save the Union — and its people — from a looming threat: attacks by ballistic
missile-borne
weapons of mass destruction.

Enter Newt Gingrich

Such is the advice Mr. Clinton received this week from Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich
who urged the President to “use the opportunity of your State of the Union speech to
announce your commitment and intent to deploy a national missile defense system.”
This
need arises because, in the Speaker’s words:

“We have no defense capability to prevent [a missile’s] destruction of its intended
target and the death of hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of American men,
women and children. In our arsenal there is not one defense system or weapon that
could be used to prevent the devastation of our country.” (Emphasis in the original.)

The Speaker is, of course, under no illusion about the odds of Mr. Clinton taking such a
step. As Rep. Gingrich notes in this letter of 20 January 1998 (see the
attached reproduction):

“Congress has for three years been urging, cajoling, legislating and appropriating in an
effort to convince you of the importance of committing your Administration to the
deployment of ballistic missile defense systems to protect all Americans. Until now,
you have prevented us from achieving this objective.“ href=”#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾

The Bottom Line

It is to be earnestly hoped that, as President Clinton prepares for this important national
address,
he will heed the counsel of the man who will be sitting right behind him. With an announcement
that he is committing to the urgent deployment of effective, global missile defenses — a
deployment that a blue-ribbon committee sponsored by the Heritage Foundation concluded
should promptly begin at sea with the upgrading of the Navy’s existing AEGIS fleet air
defense system so as to give it the capability to intercept shorter- and long-range ballistic
missiles⁽²⁾ — Mr. Clinton could do well by doing
good. He could secure immediate bipartisan
support when he desperately needs it while rectifying what is, arguably, this Nation’s single most
serious military deficiency: its abject vulnerability to missile attack.

– 30 –

1. Worse yet, as Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Armey,
Majority Whip Tom DeLay and
House Republican Conference Committee Chairman John Boehner told Mr. Clinton in a joint
letter to him last May, the President’s repeated assurances that “no Russian missiles” — or, on
occasion, he has used the formulation “no missiles” — are pointed at “America’s cities or citizens”
have encouraged “a false sense of security” about the danger of missile attack against this
country. The House Republican leadership says of this claim, which the President has made in a
previous State of the Union address as well as on more than ninety other occasions, “distorts the
truth, misrepresents the facts and, sadly, is a terribly misleading statement to make to the
American people.” See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
Smoke and Mirrors: Even By
Clinton Standard, The President’s Misrepresentations on Missile Defense Are
Scandalous
(No. 96-D 49, 23 May 1996).

2. See, for example the following Center products:
Unhappy Birthday: Twenty-Five Years of the
AMB Treaty Is Enough: Sen. Kyl Points Way To Begin Defending America ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_72″>No. 97-D 72, 23
May 1997); Validation of the Aegis Option: Successful Test Is First Step From
Promising
Concept To Global Anti-Missile Capability (No.
97-D 17, 29 January 1997); Unfinished
Business: Defending America (No. 96-T
132, 19 November 1996); and Why Doesn’t Rep.
John Spratt Want His Colleagues To Know About A Cheap, Effective, Near-Term Missile
Defense Option? (No. 96-D 51, 31 May
1996).

The Heritage Foundation’s blue-ribbon study can be accessed via the World Wide Web at
the
following address: href=”https://www.nationalsecurity.org/heritage/nationalsecurity/teamb”>www.nationalsecurity.or
g/heritage/nationalsecurity/teamb.