In his renowned compendium “Lend Me Your Ears,” William Safire emphasizes the significance of delivering a speech to truly bring it to life. However, there are many fascinating speeches that were never spoken, either due to unforeseen events or a change of heart by the speaker. After leaving my position as a special assistant and senior speechwriter for President Joe Biden, I spent years collecting and documenting these unspoken speeches. Last year, I published a book featuring 19 historically significant speeches, many of which had never been seen before. The 20th speech, however, remained elusive.
In 2004, I first heard about this speech from an article in The Washington Post titled “Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn’t on Terrorism; Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense.” Written by Robin Wright, the article revealed fragments of a speech that was meant to be delivered by Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security adviser, on September 11, 2001. The published excerpts portrayed Rice as dismissive of the terrorism threat, causing confusion and speculation. To gain a better understanding, I initiated a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2019. Although I obtained related materials, I couldn’t access the full text of the speech. I then sought documents from the speech’s author but was denied access. After appealing the decision, I finally received the drafts last month, unveiling the speech that had been erased from public memory.
To my surprise, the speech was more measured and thoughtful than anticipated, with a few unexpected twists. As we commemorate the 22nd anniversary of the September 11 attacks, this speech resonates more strongly than ever before.
On August 6, 2001, Matthew Waxman, Rice’s executive assistant, emailed John Gibson, the National Security Council’s director for foreign-policy speechwriting, suggesting a change in focus for the upcoming Rostov Lecture. Instead of discussing unilateralism and isolationism, Rice wanted to speak about missile defense as part of a larger effort to transform the relationship with Russia. The speech aimed to move beyond the post-Cold War era. Despite limited guidance, Gibson urged the inclusion of countervailing arguments to address criticisms and to avoid reinforcing negative impressions of the President. The urgency was evident, as Rice would deliver the speech on September 11, 2001.
The prevailing belief is that the threat of massive retaliation is the only deterrent against nuclear attacks. This concept, known as mutual assured destruction (MAD), relies on the fear of catastrophic consequences. However, a small group of policymakers advocate for missile defense as an alternative approach. The idea gained prominence when President Ronald Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983. Reagan envisioned ground- and space-based systems that would render nuclear weapons obsolete. Critics, including Senator Ted Kennedy, dubbed the initiative “reckless Star Wars schemes.” Despite skepticism, research and investment in missile defense continued, albeit hindered by technological complexity and ideological positioning.
Aside from technical and political hurdles, a significant geopolitical obstacle hindered missile defense progress. In 1972, the United States signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which prohibited the development of missile defenses. The underlying philosophy was that imperfect defenses would spur adversaries to enhance their offensive capabilities, leading to a cycle of increasing armaments. Although the treaty shaped American foreign policy and facilitated nuclear disarmament, some conservative policymakers argued its inadequacy in addressing ballistic missile threats from rogue states.
Donald Rumsfeld, who served as secretary of defense during the Ford and Bush administrations, was one proponent of reevaluating the ABM Treaty. In 1998, Rumsfeld chaired a commission that highlighted the potential emergence of rogue ballistic missile threats. On the heels of the commission’s report, North Korea launched a missile, intensifying concerns. When President Bush took office in 2001, his administration prioritized withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the construction of an effective missile defense system. During a speech at the National Defense University, Bush advocated for missile defense, outlining the need to move beyond the limitations of the decades-old treaty.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, however, remained skeptical and favored a more cautious approach, seeking to involve allies and avoid unilateral actions. He also considered missile defense unproven, controversial, and costly. Rice, on the other hand, saw an opportunity to shape policy and wield influence. As national security adviser, she had already disrupted protocol by meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin before Powell and delivering a key foreign-policy address. Now, Rice prepared to deliver the Rostov Lecture, further solidifying her influential position.
On September 9, 2001, Rice appeared on Meet the Press, highlighting the imperative of responding to the ballistic missile threat. Following her interview, Joe Biden, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joined the program…
[Continued]
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
