Everett Does Bait and Switch on Promise to Cucinich

House Republican from Alabama, Terry Everett Promised A Future Debate on Space Weapons....and now promises to debate space intelligence instead. Can't we call false promises a form of abusive rhetoric?
read this Space News report from June of 2005.



Here's what he said in 2005;

......Floor debate on the appropriations bill also featured an amendment seeking to ban the deployment of ground- and space-based anti-satellite weapons as well as research and development on those systems. The amendment, offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), also called on Bush to negotiate an international treaty banning such weapons.
Kucinich, a former presidential candidate who has offered similar legislation in the past, expressed concern during floor debate that recent rhetoric from senior Air Force officers indicates that the service hopes to move aggressively towards fielding anti-satellite weapons.
“Our largest possible adversaries, China and Russia, have agreed [to] a global ban on space weapons,” Kucinich said. “Yet moving forward with plans to weaponize space would most certainly create an arms race in space, and it would certainly be counterproductive to the national security of the United States to give potential adversaries reason to accelerate development of space weapons technology.”
However, Kucinich’s amendment was ruled out of order after Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, objected to it on the grounds that an appropriations bill cannot change current law.
Doug Gordon, a spokesman for Kucinich, said that the congressman was aware that the amendment could not be included with the bill, but chose to offer it on the floor as a way to draw attention to the issue. Kucinich plans to work on building more support for the legislation amongst his colleagues, Gordon said.
Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, a think tank here, commended Kucinich for raising the issue on the floor. But sufficient debate has not taken place yet on Capitol Hill to bring the issue to the attention of enough members to pass the legislation, said Hitchens, a vocal advocate against space weapons.
Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, has promised during hearings earlier this year to begin briefings and hearings on the topic this year, which may help to raise its profile on Capitol Hill, she said.
By JEREMY SINGER
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 27 June 2005
02:18 pm ET
Comments: jsinger@space.com

Here's what he's saying now that he's elected.

'As chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Congressman Everett is tasked with leading the first national debate on space control and the protection of valuable space assets. The United States depends greatly on activities conducted hundreds and thousands of miles in orbit through constellations of satellites and their ground stations back on earth. Yet, for all their sophistication, these cutting-edge systems which make our lives much easier and our country safer are also vulnerable to enemy attack.

Congressman Everett recognizes this threat and seeks to take action to prevent chaos at home and on the high-tech battlefield. Our military, especially our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, depend on space every moment of the day. Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites guide munitions, aircraft and vehicles through the theater of battle. Other satellite systems enable our war fighters with real-time communications, intelligence, and weather monitoring capabilities. Our space assets provide national policy makers critical intelligence necessary for ensuring compliance with arms control treaties, tracking weapons proliferation activities, and monitoring disaster relief operations." (House of Reps website, November 20th 2006)

Notice the switch from promising to talk about Americans' grave concerns about hideous space lazers and other invisible killing machines over our heads, to promising to talk about how wonderful intelligence satelites and gps positioning devices, all of which have been used for years without major need for debate,and then strongly implying that we need space weapons to defend these robots against attack.

That's a false promise combined with a bait and switch device. You offer to sell heffers and you deliver goats.

Proper response: "Sir, speaking before Cucinich, you promised us a debate on the control of space weapons over a year ago, and now you are saying you are "tasked" (by who?) to discuss control over space intelligence, which is not an issue, and clearly implying that you already know the answer to the debate on space weapons, that we need them to defend our space technology. What kind of debate is it when you already have the answer?"