From the text of a speech White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University:
"And yes these new threats also require us to pay attention to other means of delivery besides missiles. We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway. That is why last year the federal government spent about $11 billion on counter-terrorism efforts, about twice as much as we did on missile defense. That is why we're working closely with friends, allies, and the broader international community on counterterrorism initiatives.
"And that is why in May the president appointed Vice President Cheney to oversee a coordinated national effort to better protect the U.S. homeland against a terror attack using WMD. But why not missile defenses as well?
"Why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open? At the end of the day, do we really want to choose a course of action that gambles with America's security by choosing not to explore the additional measure of security that limited missile defenses could provide?"
From the speech Rice gave at the rescheduled Johns Hopkins engagement on April 29, 2002:
"It's going to take years to understand the long-term effects of September 11th. But even now, we are beginning to recognize that there are certain verities that September 11th reinforced and brought home to us in the most vivid way. First, there has been an end to innocence about international politics and about our own vulnerability. . . .
"Second, the events of September 11th underscored the idea that a sound foreign policy begins at home. We are now engaged in trying to harden the country. That means thinking about airport security, visa requirements, protection of nuclear power plants and other physical and cybersecurity infrastructure. . . .
"The third truth is that we can only do so much to protect ourselves at home. And so the best . . . defense is a good offense. We have to take the fight to the terrorists. And that means that there can be no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. . . .
"A fourth truth . . . [is] the need to deny terrorists and hostile states the opportunity to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The world's most dangerous people simply cannot be permitted to obtain the world's most dangerous weapons. And it is a stubborn and extremely troubling fact that the list of states that sponsor terror and the list of states that are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction overlap substantially. . . . We must use every tool at our disposal to meet this grave global threat, including strengthened nonproliferation regimes and export controls and moving ahead with missile defense to deny any benefit to those who would try and acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . ."
