Some Bargaining Chip!

I despair. I can't make any sense out of it. Am I missing the point? Am I just stupid?

This is all in reference to the recent Congressional vote to release $1.5 billion for production of 21 additional MX missiles. It wasn't a vote on the issue at all, but purportedly was to be used as a "bargaining chip" in the forthcoming U.S.-Soviet arms control talks.

President Reagan utilized all of his considerable influence in quarters.

Most disinterested observers pushing for a favorable vote. In feel that the MX missile is an no uncertain terms, recalcitrant unreliable first-strike weapon, Republican senators (of whom housed in vulnerable fixed silos, there were quite a handful and simply does not qualify as a beyond the 8 who ultimately credible piece of military equipment. The MX missile had been voted against it) were told that described previously by former the President would not campaign for their re-election; nor would campaign funds flow to them from Republican headquarters.

Feeling good about yourself means having many "goodies" come your way:

Both houses of Congress, without really believing in the efficacy of the MX as a military weapon, cravenly caved in before the persistent lobbying of Caspar Weinberger and Ronald Reagan. It was a shameful sight to behold — this lemming-like behavior of our elected representatives.

The vote on the MX was turned into a litmus test of patriotism. The administration even brought home from his purportedly vital Geneva negotiations Max Kampelman, chief U.S. arms control negotiator, to lobby a reluctant Congress. It was ironic to witness our disarmament negotiator rushing home to sell Congress on more arms.

With all the weapons the President already has at his disposal — Cruise Missiles, Trident 2 submarine-fired missiles, the Stealth bomber, and the Star Wars program — he certainly has more than enough "bargaining chips" for this crazy poker game he apparently fancies is taking place in Geneva.

What kind of a bargaining chip is the MX missile? How effective can it be in negotiations with the Russians when all of the talk preceding the vote referred to it almost exclusively as a "bargaining chip?" What kind of poker playing is it when you show your cards so openly to the other side? After all, the Russians do read our newspapers.

Russia has no reason for concern to see us spend billions on this questionable weapon which is so vulnerable to Soviet attack. It's entirely possible that the vote may have been cause for rejoicing in the Kremlin.

I watched in disbelief and despair during the debate as senator after senator questioned the MX's military value and its multi-billion dollar cost, only ultimately to succumb at the vote to the administration's bargaining chip argument.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but pray tell me how is the MX missile to be used as a bargaining chip? In all the voluminous newspaper reports on the discussions preceding the MX vote, the bargaining chip argument was bandied about ad nauseam by President Reagan on downward, but no one ever bothered to explain. Did it mean that the MX would be negotiated away during the talks? Hardly. What on earth does the phrase mean? Does anyone know?

What chance do we have of really bringing down the monstrous federal deficit if we deal so cavalierly in multi-billion dollar bargaining chips? What's fair about the recent vote giving the Pentagon an inflation+3% increase while reducing social security benefits to many elderly and disabled by an inflation-2%?

Am I out of step and have I lost touch with prevailing Washington 'reality?'

To me, the recent bargaining-chip gambit smelled like a chip of a different odor.