* Los Angeles Times, "Does America Need a 全tar Wars' Defense Against Missile Attack?," by Jennifer Weeks, 5/28/96
"To the extent that the Defend America Act claims to protect Americans against such threats, it would be better named the Defraud America Act."
* The Napa Valley Register, "What's Riggs' Defense Stand?," 5/14/96
"If we really want to balance the federal budget, does it make any sense to spend more than the Pentagon wants, or to keep intelligence budget information secret from taxpayers?"
* New Haven Register, "Fatal Flaw Cripples Missile Defense Plan," by John Hall, 6/3/96
"The Congressional Budget Office, which is non-partisan but controlled by the Republican majority, estimated that a defense of the continent against missile attack would cost somewhere between $31 billion and $60 billion."
* The Miami Herald, "Fort Port gets reinforced," 5/20/96
"One of the most wasteful items is the $4 billion earmarked to construct a missile defense system by the year 2003. This dubious 全on of Star Wars' could wind up costing as much as $54 billion before it finally could be deployed."
* The Atlanta Constitution, "Cold Warriors Spend On," 5/19/96
"Twelve billion dollars here, 8 billion there, 20 billion beyond that and 4 billion in embarrassingly loose change."
* Chicago Tribune, "Missiles get GOP Attention," by Terry Atlas 5/22/96
"As for a missile threat from the likes of Iran or North Korea, the CIA says that it is at least 15 years away."
* Chicago Sun-Times, "Military Gets a Free Pass," by Jennifer Weeks, 6/20/96
"Any candidate who claims to be for lower deficits, but votes for B-2 bombers, or Star Wars defenses, has some serious explaining to do."
* The Boston Sunday Globe, "Missile flap backfires on Dole," by Thomas Oliphant, 5/26/96
"The subject is on the arcane side and lacks documented immediacy--the dream first popularized by Ronald Reagan more than a decade ago of an impermeable defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles.
* The Berkshire Eagle, "Newt's War Toy," 5/12/96
"The GOP revival of Star Wars, dubbed by its sponsors the 船efend America Act,' looks more political than military in intent."
* Bangor Daily News, "Near miss." 6/6/96
"Under the military's plan, if a defense system were needed in the future, it would have the latest research to develop one. This more reasonable proposal is in line with the belt-tightening in other parts of the federal budget, and would likely produce a superior defense system."
* The New York Times, "No Defense," by Joseph Cirincione, 5/8/96
"But since 1962, we have spent $99 billion on research for missile defenses--in vain.."
* The New York Times, "Wasteful Weapons Spending," 6/21/96
"President Clinton should veto a defense budget that includes ambitious plans for building ballistic-missile defenses or substantially exceeds his spending request."
* Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Veto bait," 5/18/96
"Separate House and Senate bills also would require deployment of a multisite nationwide missile defense system by 2003. President Clinton properly vetoed last year's spending authorization bill because it contained that same requirement."
* Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal, "How much for defense?" 5/16/96
"While President Clinton and Congress wrestle over how much to cut from domestic spending--the figure last week was in the $280 billion range--the House voted to add $12.9 billion to the already bloated military budget."
* Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal, "Rep. Weldon wrong about his Star Wars sequel," by Ed Ruoff, 7/4/96
"One of the more disturbing aspects of this fraudulent proposal is that it may divert us from addressing the practical dangers from rogue nations and terrorist groups."
* The Washington Post, "Prudent Steps on Missile Defense," 5/14/96
"The administration's plan is realistic both in facing up to a rogue-missile threat and in taking into account the considered view of U.S. intelligence that the threat is more than 15 years away."
* The Washington Post, "Missile Defense-Extravagant and Unnecessary," by Karina Wood, 5/30/96
"While our generals watch the skies, bombs arrive in U.S. cities in cheap, unmarked suitcases and trucks."
* The Washington Post, "Fear of the Wrong Enemy," by Jessica Matthews, 5/28/96
"By any reasonable measure of matching risk to expense, these programs [Nunn-Lugar-Domenici] would return more security per dollar than the much larger sums being contemplated for a national missile defense against much more remote threats."
* The Washington Post, "GOP Freshmen's Anti-Missile Sticker Shock," by Jack Anderson and Michael Binstein, 6/3/96
"The deficit-hawk freshmen are unfazed by Gingrich's pleas to remember the defense buildup of the Reagan revolution."
* The Hill, "Republicans Rush into Ambush on Defense," by David Silverberg, 5/8/96
"The Republicans are not only losing the high ground in defense, they are rushing into an ambush.
* Journal-Sentinel, "missile Defense: Less costly options are available," by Kathryn R. Schultz, 6/30/96
"Moreover, if a nation or terrorist group wanted to attack the U.S., why would it go to the trouble and huge expense of acquiring ballistic missiles when it could sail a bomb into New York Harbor or deliver it in the back of a moving van."
* The Christian Science Monitor, "Spacey on Defense," 5/17/96
"It makes neither budgetary nor military sense."
* The Christian Science Monitor, "GOP 全tar Wars' Plan: Too Soon for a Sequel?," 5/15/96
"There are real nuclear dangers out there, evil groups with evil intents, but they are more likely to use truck bombs and suitcases to attack America than spend billions on a highly visible missile-delivery system that has a return address."
* Scripps-Howard News Service, "Budget-Seeking Missiles," 5/24/96
"The idea of a foolproof system that can detect, intercept and destroy incoming missiles is an attractive one and may be attainable one day, but that day isn't yet."
* Scripps-Howard News Service, "No Retirement Gift Needed," 6/5/96
"The other is a ballistic missile defense system, contained in the grandiosely named 船efend America Act,' which may or may not work but would certainly be enormously expensive, in the range of $32 billion to $60 billion over the next 14 years."
* "Blowing Up the Government," by Mary McGrory, 7/9/96
"The price tag on a Ballistic Missile Defense is estimated at $60 billion. To deploy the system would be to violate the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty."
* The Washington Post, "The Need for National Missile Defense," by Charles P. Kelley, 6/8/96
"The Congressional Budget Office estimate of $30 billion to $60 billion, for example, includes space-based lasers. Even the CBO estimate is far less than the cost of one nuclear weapon exploding on U.S. soil."
* The Washington Times, "The Great Missile-Defense Rout," 5/24/96
"Ronald Reagan had the inspired vision of a shield that would protect American families from the threat of nuclear war...more than a decade later, the concept is still a dazzlingly brilliant one."
* USA Today, "Congress Holds the Line," by Representative Curt Weldon, 5/20/96
"We can avoid the up-and-down 喪oller coaster' budgets of the post-Vietnam era, but only if we act now to provide a consistent level of defense spending."
* "We won't need Star Wars? Beware such predictions." by George F. Will, 6/27/96
"A tendentious prediction is the Clinton administration's latest justification for its dilatory approach to defending the nation against the sort of ballistic missile attack that could be launched by a rogue nation."
* "In defense of Missile Defense," by William Safire, 5/12/96
"Because there is no perfect armor should not mean we stand naked."