U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice defended the Bush administration’s national security priorties yesterday before the 9/11 commission (AFP photo/Paul Richards). Missile Defense, Not Terror, Was Bush’s ‘Most Urgent Threat’ Before 9/11 By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — In a major address four months before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush declared the potential threat of ballistic missile attacks the “most urgent threat” facing the United States and his administration acted accordingly...Full Story

U.S. Examining Possible North Korea-Myanmar Missile Sales By Steve Hirsch Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are looking at whether North Korea might be trying to sell ballistic missiles to Myanmar, a Bush administration official told Global Security Newswire today (see GSN, March 26)...Full Story

Amendments Proposed to U.N. WMD Resolution By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — Brazil, Pakistan and other elected members of the U.N. Security Council yesterday offered their first critiques of a draft resolution that would require all countries to deny terrorists and other nonstate actors access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 1)...Full Story

	Friday, April 9, 2004

U.S. Auditor Finds Slow Spending of Terrorism Grants, but Calls Spending a Poor Measure of Progress By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Homeland Security Department’s inspector general yesterday endorsed the growing consensus that states and local jurisdictions have been slow to spend post-Sept. 11, 2001, federal terrorism-response funds, but said spending rates are not the best way to track progress in improving preparedness (see GSN, March 19). As of February, most of the $2.4 billion in first-responder grants awarded in fiscal 2002 and 2003 by the department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness remained in the U.S. Treasury, Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin said in a report. The portion of funds that was spent ranged from 10 to 36 percent for the office’s various grant programs. The inspector general added, though, that “the spending picture is not as bad as it appears.” Some state and local governments, he said, delayed spending while assessing the terrorist threat and setting priorities, “believing that spending the funds wisely was more important than spending them immediately.” Accused by cities of creating what Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has called a spending “logjam,” state officials have stressed that they have designated much grant money to local jurisdictions that have not yet spent the funds. Ervin appeared to endorse the states’ position. “Although only a small percentage of the funds had been drawn down, much of the remainder had been committed or obligated. … The amounts of funds drawn down by states provide an incomplete picture of the progress states and local jurisdictions are making. A more accurate way to monitor progress would be to identify the amount of funds obligated and spent (outlays) by the states and local jurisdictions,” Ervin said. “For example, as of Sept. 30, 2003, Ohio and Pennsylvania obligated and spent over 98 percent of their fiscal 2002 grant awards, while ODP’s grant payment history reports showed that only 36 percent and 8 percent, respectively, were drawn down,” he said. Ervin recommended that the Office for Domestic Preparedness increase reporting requirements and performance standards for grant recipients; speed development of federal guidelines on first-responder capabilities, equipment and training; and offer grant recipients guidance on how best to accelerate spending. A Homeland Security Department official said today that many such changes are coming this year. The official cited a new system for tracking funds, as well as improvements in the department’s ability to provide technical assistance to state and local officials. “A lot of this will be done or is in planning to be done very quickly,” the official said. Several members of Congress who have sponsored measures to reform first-responder grant programs said the inspector general’s report demonstrates the need for such laws. “This report indicates that there is a clear need for legislation to ensure that homeland security funding reaches our first responders, who are on the front lines in the war against terrorism,” said Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine), the sponsor of one of several pending Office for Domestic Preparedness reform bills. Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) and senior Democrat Jim Turner (Texas) of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, which has produced a bill to speed Homeland Security Department funding to emergency responders, also praised the report. “This report echoes our own findings and supports quick passage of our bill,” they said in a statement. Back to top

Amendments Proposed to U.N. WMD Resolution By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — Brazil, Pakistan and other elected members of the U.N. Security Council yesterday offered their first critiques of a draft resolution that would require all countries to deny terrorists and other nonstate actors access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 1). Brazil had the most detailed response, submitting a paper Brazilian diplomats said would address two key concerns about the resolution: the impact a Security Council resolution would have on arms control treaties and the lack of any reference to disarmament in the draft. The draft, as it is currently written, would require states to “adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws” to deny nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, their components and “means of delivery” (such as missiles and drones) to any “nonstate actors.” The primary goal of the draft — closing legal loopholes to make it harder for terrorists and other nonstate actors to obtain weapons of mass destruction — is generally supported, diplomats said. Under the Brazilian plan, the word “nonproliferation” throughout the text would be replaced by “availability, access to and transfer of” weapons of mass destruction. “By expanding the application of the legal and political category of ‘nonproliferation’” from state-to-state activities to involve nonstate actors, the paper says, the draft resolution “risks cutting across” international law and “opening the possibility of a conceptual misapprehension” about the obligations of states. The Brazilian proposal would also eliminate all references to treaties, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This way, the paper says, “We would avoid possible problems regarding the alteration of existing commitments under international law” by a council resolution. After the closed-door consultations on the draft, Brazilian Ambassador Ronaldo Sardenberg said that because the draft would be “extending the concept” of nonproliferation beyond existing treaty obligations, it would be better if the council “replace[s] the concept of nonproliferation with something new, because nonproliferation is an old concept.” He added, “I think it would be much easier to negotiate if we will not really press for nonproliferation in that sense, but use other ideas that are as good as nonproliferation but are not embodied in any particular treaty.” In addition, by eliminating references to treaties, “amendments concerning the link between disarmament and nonproliferation … would no longer be necessary,” the paper says. The draft resolution, which originated with the United States, was presented to the council on March 24 on behalf of all five permanent members of the council. Yesterday’s meeting was the first opportunity for the 10 elected members of the council to comment on the text. Spain and Romania have joined as co-sponsors. Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram said he was seeking several “reassurances” that the resolution “does not envisage a preauthorization of … the use of force,” that it will “be restricted to nonstate actors only” and “will not impact on treaty regimes.” He said he needed to know “whether this is a window that is being opened for a broader nonproliferation regime through the Security Council.” How the sponsors of the resolution respond to the Brazilian amendments “will put this to some sort of a test,” Akram added. Pakistan, along with India and Israel, developed nuclear weapons outside of the NPT. “We want to make sure this is a resolution that is not going to open a Pandora’s box about the history of proliferation,” Akram said. Germany and Algeria have also proposed amendments. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger of Germany said Berlin’s proposals “have not been accommodated so far,” but he would not say what the suggestions involve. Last week he said the proposals “relate the resolution to disarmament and disarmament obligations that are already existing under international law because there is a connection, of course.” The current draft makes no reference to disarmament. A U.S. official said the co-sponsors were working to take the amendments into account. He said he expected there would be an “effort made for an amended draft” by the end of next week, when the council may hold further consultations. Pleuger, who is also the president of the council for April, said “several delegations raised the question” of an open meeting on the draft, but “no decision has been taken yet.” He added, “If we have an open meeting, then it should be well-prepared to give the members of the General Assembly the possibility to prepare for that. Otherwise, we might end up only with polemics and not with substantial discussion.” Back to top       U.S. Senate Panel OKs Rail, Maritime Safety Bills By Zach Patton Congress Daily WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee yesterday approved two bipartisan bills that would increase the amount of federal funding for rail and maritime security efforts by $4 billion (see GSN, July 23, 2003). The committee reported out measures that would add $1.2 billion and $2 billion respectively over five years for rail and maritime security. The rail security legislation would require the Homeland Security and Transportation departments to conduct a vulnerability study on security efforts, and would authorize $100 million over the next two years for research and development. The bill also would set up a $350 million grant program for infrastructure improvements nationwide, and would authorize $670 million over five years for tunnel security improvements in New York, Baltimore and Washington. It incorporates a whistleblower protection provision for rail workers who disclose security-related problems. The maritime security bill approved today would devote $400 million annually over five years to raise security efforts at the nation’s ports, including increased tracking of intermodal cargo, increased research on blast-resistant vessels, and infrastructure improvement. Originally, the legislation directed the Homeland Security Department to enact a user fee to fund the increased security spending. However, the committee approved an amendment by Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) striking the user-fee language from the bill. Lott said these security efforts should be funded through customs fees paid by port users.  “The money is there,” Lott said. “It should be used to pay for these improvements, instead of being used by everybody for all sorts of things,” including energy bill provisions and welfare funding, Lott said.  Commerce Committee ranking Democrat Ernest (Fritz) Hollings of South Carolina said Lott’s amendment in essence turns the bill into an unfunded mandate because it omits language preventing customs fees from being used for nongermane projects. Back to top

U.S. Company Settles Illegal Toxin Export Charges The U.S. company Molecular Probes Inc. agreed to pay a $266,750 civil penalty to settle charges that it illegally exported toxins controlled for biological and chemical weapons reasons, the U.S. Commerce Department announced last week (see GSN, Feb. 25). The Commerce Department charged that on 97 occasions between January 1998 and October 2002, the Eugene, Ore., company exported conotoxin and tetrodotoxin to a number of countries without receiving governmental approval. The company voluntarily disclosed the violations and cooperated with the investigation, the department said (U.S. Commerce Department Bureau of Industry and Security release, April 2). Back to top       Eleven Local Public Health Agencies Meet Standards for Project Public Health Ready Of the more than 3,000 local public health agencies in the United States, only 11 have been recognized for significantly improving their ability to respond to public health emergencies such as the release of a biological agent, according to an assessment this month by Project Public Health Ready. The project was started by the National Association of County and City Health Officials and is intended to improve the response capability of public health agencies (see GSN, March 24). “These 11 local public health agencies have established models for ensuring complete public health emergency preparedness for the citizens of our country,” said association Executive Director Patrick Libbey in a prepared statement. “There is much to be done at every level of the public health system, but this project gives local public health agencies a roadmap for meeting a core set of preparedness standards,” he added. The program, developed by the association with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Columbia University Center for Public Health, attempts to gauge local public health preparedness. Each local organization was evaluated on three criteria: preparedness planning, individual worker competence, and demonstration of readiness through drills and exercises (NACCHO Release, April 2004). “One of the most common and possible scenarios would be a pandemic flu, which would involve mass immunization clinics,” said Janice Berns, director of the Needham, Mass., Health Department, one of the recognized agencies. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified things like anthrax, tularemia, smallpox, plague, and botulism as biological terrorist possibilities” (Rhonda Stewart, Boston Globe, April 8). Back to top       Homeland Security Department Announces Contractors for Biodetection Systems The U.S. Homeland Security Departement announced last week the selection of teams for contract negotiations for research and development of biological detection sensors and systems (see GSN, March 2). For the first phase of projects will have $48 million in funding to develop systems to monitor indoor and outdoor areas for bacteria, viruses and toxins. Money will be allocated to 14 groups, including Northrop Grumman Systems and Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory (U.S. Homeland Security Department Release, April 1). Back to top

Toxic Gas Released in Bulgarian Police Office An attack involving the use of chloro-picrine gas in a traffic police office in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia today left more than 40 people hospitalized, one with life-threatening injuries, according to the Bulgarian News Network (see GSN, Feb. 5, 2003). The Bulgarian Health Ministry said that chloro-picrine, an obsolete chemical weapon-grade tear gas, can cause damage to the eyes and suffocation. Police identified the man who released the gas and are searching for him, BNN reported (BNN, April 9). Back to top       Anniston Incinerator to Resume Chemical Destruction The Environmental Protection Agency has cleared the U.S. Army to move ahead with chemical weapons incineration at the Anniston Army Depot, after new test results verified the incinerator’s ability to remove small amounts of PCBs from its emissions, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, April 2). The agency’s decision gave the Army permission to destroy M-55 rockets and GB nerve agent, also known as sarin. The incinerator will work at half its maximum capability, burning 16 sarin rockets per hour beginning this weekend, according to project manager Tim Garrett. Robert Downing, a longtime critic of the chemical weapons incinerator and commission chairman for Calhoun County, where Anniston is located, said he is pleased the Army is meeting regulatory standards. “Although I don’t agree with the technology for destruction of the weapons, I do expect them to operate within the parameters they have been permitted to operate,” Downing said. “I’m glad they finally met those requirements,” he added (Associated Press/Gainesville Sun, April 8). Back to top       Delaware, N.J. Governors Oppose VX Disposal Plan The governors of Delaware and New Jersey yesterday criticized a U.S. Army plan to dispose in their states a byproduct of neutralized VX stockpiles at the Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana (see GSN, April 8). The Army plans to ship up to 4 million gallons of hydrolysate byproduct to a facility in New Jersey for final treatment. The material would then be dumped into the Delaware River, the Associated Press reported. In a letter sent yesterday to acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee, Delaware Governor Ruth Anne Minner and New Jersey Governor James McGreevey said it is “in the best interests of the citizens and natural resources of the states of Delaware and New Jersey” that the entire VX destruction process occur in Indiana. Army officials are reviewing the letter and will respond, Chemical Materials Agency spokesman Jeff Lindblad said (Randall Chase, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 8). Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agreed yesterday to review the Army’s plan to ship hydrolysate to New Jersey (Lawrence Hajna, Camden, N.J., Courier-Post, April 9). In Indiana, state environment officials and the commander of the Newport Chemical Depot said there would be little chance of an accidental release of VX during the destruction process. “There won’t be a release from this plant unless there is a catastrophic incident,” such as an airplane crash into the facility, said Tom Linson, chief of the permits branch of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of Land Quality. “Chances of any incident are very small,” he said (Patricia Pastore, Terre Haute, Ind., Tribune-Star, April 8). Back to top

U.S. Examining Possible North Korea-Myanmar Missile Sales By Steve Hirsch Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are looking at whether North Korea might be trying to sell ballistic missiles to Myanmar, a Bush administration official told Global Security Newswire today (see GSN, March 26). The issue of potential cooperation between the two pariah states was addressed March 19 during a meeting of officials, including representatives from the intelligence community, National Security Council and State Department. These officials meet periodically on nonproliferation issues and looked at the North Korea-Myanmar question following press and intelligence reports raising the possibility of cooperation between Pyongyang and Yangon, the official said. U.S. officials believe North Korea has offered Myanmar surface-to-surface missiles going beyond multiple rocket launchers, with a range of more than 100 miles. The missiles could have WMD capabilities, depending on their configuration. The officials, however, believe Myanmar is “decades” away from a nuclear weapon capability unless someone sells the country a warhead. They also are not concerned about biological weapons, but the situation with chemical weapons is less clear. This source said U.S. officials are fairly confident no transfers have been authorized and said Myanmar has said it has not accepted the North Korean offer so far. It is believed that the North Koreans would be interested in a combination of cash and barter — items such as rice or teak — in return for the missiles. Back to top

Missile Defense, Not Terror, Was Bush’s ‘Most Urgent Threat’ Before 9/11 By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — In a major address four months before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush declared the potential threat of ballistic missile attacks the “most urgent threat” facing the United States and his administration acted accordingly. From its earliest days until the attacks, the Bush administration appeared to treat the missile threat as its top national security priority by aggressively lobbying for the hastened development and deployment of a controversial antiballistic missile defense system, according to a review by Global Security Newswire of administration statements and official documents. White House officials lately, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testifying yesterday before a panel investigating the attacks, have argued terrorism was at least on par with a number of top priorities for the administration. The review, a survey of presidential speeches, statements and press conferences regularly catalogued by the White House, finds senior officials were dispatched across the globe during that period to consult and assuage foreign leaders regarding the administration’s missile defense plans.  The administration asked Congress to double annual missile defense funding to $8 billion for fiscal 2002, making it the largest U.S. weapons program. Missile defense also was a major subject at Bush’s meetings with major foreign leaders and he repeatedly spoke publicly on the matter. At the same time, Bush said little publicly about al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, despite numerous previous suspected attacks, including the strike against the warship USS Cole in October 2000,according to the review. Bush also said little publicly of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein prior to 9/11, though his administration has since been accused of a predisposition toward invasion and U.S. fighter jets regularly were shot at while patrolling Iraqi no-fly zones. “Until Sept. 11, the top national security priority of the Bush administration had been the development and deployment of a national missile defense system,” said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in an analysis he published this week on his Web site titled “Missile Obsession Distorted Threat Priorities.” Obsession Charged Cirincione said the administration came to power with a sense of political urgency on missile defense. “They had learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush administrations. They realized that they had limited time and had to move on this as quickly as possible to lock it in so that no future president could reverse it. They wanted to smash the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in the first year, and pour money into the program to create facts on the ground in their first term,” he said in an interview. Missile defense “had an almost religious power” for administration neoconservatives, “evoking the Reagan legacy and this belief that creating an effective defense against ballistic missiles was largely the function of political will,” he said. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd drew similar conclusions six days before 9/11, writing, “Why can George W. Bush think of nothing but a missile shield? Our president is caught in the grip of an obsession worthy of literature.” Administration officials have said there are potential threats necessitating the defense, citing foremost intelligence projections for North Korean missile development. April 1 stories in the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun recently revived the issue over the administration’s focus. The Post reported that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice after the attacks aborted a speech scheduled for Sept. 11 addressing “the threats and problems of today” that focused largely on missile defense. The Sun report, also surveying Bush’s statements, concluded the president said little publicly about terrorism in comments and speeches prior to 9/11. White House Counters Facing questioning by an independent commission examining why the attacks were not prevented, Bush administration officials have argued their focus on al-Qaeda was not trumped by missile defense, but rather coincided with many top priorities. They repeatedly have cited a classified presidential security directive on terrorism that was reportedly awaiting Bush’s signature on 9/11 that was developed during the previous spring and summer. “President Bush understood the threat and he understood its importance. …  It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration — not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda,” Rice told the commission yesterday. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who also cited the directive at an April 1 press briefing, called al-Qaeda “a top priority” among others, referring also to missile defense and confronting rogue regimes seeking dangerous weapons. “One doesn’t have the luxury of dealing only with one issue if you are the United States of America. There are many urgent and important issues,” Rice also told the commission. ‘Most Urgent Threat’ However, Bush’s directive was signed in September, more than four months after his May 1 missile defense address at the National Defense University in which he declared potential missile threats from “rogue” states the nation’s top security concern. “Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in Soviet hands but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life,” he said. That speech was devoted to making the case for more aggressively developing and deploying a missile defense system, including by controversially ending or amending the ABM Treaty. In his talk, Bush said he would quickly dispatch senior representatives — Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley — to allied capitals in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada, as well as to China and Russia, to consult with leaders and seek support for the plan. “Their trips will be part of an ongoing process of consultation involving many people and many levels of government, including my Cabinet secretaries,” the president said.  Such trips continued into July and August 2001, according to Cirincione. “In the two months before Sept. 11, five Cabinet members, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, traveled to Moscow. They were not there to coordinate counterterrorism operations or share threat assessments … [but to] convince the Russian leadership to scuttle the Antiballistic Missile treaty,” he wrote. Bush himself before the attacks discussed the plan among other topics in meetings with the leaders of Germany, Japan, Poland, Russia, Spain and the United Kingdom. Bush’s May 1 statement was not an anomaly, nor the first word on the president’s missile defense emphasis. As a presidential candidate, he vowed to deploy a system and criticized incumbent President Bill Clinton for leaving “unfinished business” by concluding the technology was not ready for use. The administration’s formal budget presentation document for fiscal 2002, delivered to Congress in February 2001, also identified developing theater and national missile defenses as the country’s “most pressing national security challenge,” while mentioning terrorism once and not referring to Iraq in its list of 15 major policy priorities. It advocated missile defense deployment “at the earliest possible date.” The document listed three national security goals: to improve troop morale, develop “new generation” weaponry, and protect the American people “from missile attack and threats of terror,” but proposed no new actions to address terror. A Lot of Work Bush’s missile defense plan was viewed as no easy undertaking. The administration faced a vocal Democratic opposition in Congress and skepticism from friendly and allied governments. Officials also sought to avoid strategic blowback by convincing Russia and China that the system and removal of ABM Treaty restrictions were not intended to neutralize their missile capabilities. Critics from the scientific community charged that the technological challenge was so great the system would never work effectively. Arms control critics, meanwhile, charged that abandoning the treaty restrictions could undermine global stability and that the defenses would address an improbable threat, while drawing money from the most probable danger to the United States: terrorism. Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) made that case in a Sept. 10, 2001, speech at the National Press Club, saying “real threats come into this country in the hold of ship, or the belly of a plane or are smuggled into a city in the middle of the night in a vial in a backpack.” Administration officials have argued that missile defenses were needed to deter rogue countries, potentially including Iraq, from acts of aggression backed by ballistic missiles. “They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world,” Bush said in his May 1 speech. “When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world joined forces to turn him back. But the international community would have faced a very different situation had Hussein been able to blackmail with nuclear weapons,” he said. During his Jan. 17, 2001, confirmation hearing, Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell acknowledged the challenge, saying he expected “to be spending a lot of my time” discussing U.S. missile defense plans with foreign leaders. Administration Was Aware, Concerned The Bush administration, meanwhile, certainly was aware of the gravity of the al-Qaeda threat. The New York Times had published four long, front-page stories on the organization just prior to Bush’s inauguration and officials told the 9/11 commission last month they were extensively briefed by Clinton administration officials on the global terror threat and al-Qaeda. “Early on, we made clear to the Congress and the American public that we understood the scope and compelling nature of the threat from terrorism,” Powell said last month, citing February 2001 testimony by his acting assistant secretary for intelligence, Tom Fingar.  Fingar, a Clinton administration holdover, testified then, “unconventional threats probably pose a more immediate danger to Americans than do foreign armies, nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, or the proliferation of WMD and delivery systems.” He also cited intelligence suggesting al-Qaeda might target Americans “on almost every continent,” Powell noted. Powell’s confirmation testimony the prior month, though, did not list al-Qaeda among the 20 administration foreign policy priorities, the Associated Press reported last week. “Neither did the senators who questioned him,” the story added. Different Approaches 9/11 commissioners yesterday pressed Rice to explain why, given al-Qaeda’s history and declaration of war against the United States, the administration had not acted with greater urgency to address the threat.  Rice acknowledged the administration was not on a “war footing,” and that top administration leaders had not met on the subject until Sept. 4, despite heightened threat warnings during the summer of 2001. She said, though, the “vast majority” of threat intelligence pointed to overseas attacks, and that the administration faced well-known “structural problems” hampering intelligence sharing between law enforcement and intelligence, that required a change in thinking too daunting to perform prior to 9/11. “The unfortunate … fact is that sometimes until there is a catastrophic event that forces people to think differently, that forces people to overcome old customs and old culture and old fears about domestic intelligence … that you don’t get that kind of change,” she said. Powell at his confirmation hearing, though, had suggested the administration was engaged in such a difficult task of perception change with missile defense. “I have also been through several things like this over the years where people see something new come along and they are terrified. It’s going to shake old patterns of behavior. It’s going to be terrible.  Everything’s going to be blown apart. But if it’s the right thing to do, you do it anyway,” he said. “So sometimes you have to go through these political barriers and you have to go through these barriers of understanding if you think you’ve got a system that really does make sense and it’s your obligation to sell it,” he concluded. Back to top       MDA Director to Retire in September U.S. Missile Defense Agency Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish is set to retire Sept. 1, the agency announced yesterday (see GSN, March 26). President George W. Bush nominated Air Force Maj. Gen. Henry Obering, MDA deputy director, to replace Kadish (Keith Costa, InsideDefense.com, April 8).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.