Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Another Reason Why Democrats Can’t Be Trusted With Foreign Policy
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Russia has made its move. Poland has suddenly agreed to base a US missile defense system in their country. That's an extremely important counter-move. But the Dems in Congress don't want to do anything until the system is "proven" (it is a system they've fought tooth and nail since it was envisioned by Ronald Reagan).
As the Bush administration speeds ahead with plans to construct a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, some Democrats in Congress want to put on the brakes, saying it has not been adequately tested.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to be in Warsaw on Wednesday to sign an agreement on the missiles with Poland, which agreed to the basing of 10 interceptors last week, after the Russian attacks on Georgia. Justified as a defense against a missile attack on Europe by a rogue nation like Iran, the installation has provoked outrage from Russia.

Even before the agreement was reached, the Bush administration had proposed spending $712 million in the coming fiscal year to start digging silos in Poland; installing a related radar system in the Czech Republic, another former Soviet satellite that is now a NATO member; and buying initial parts for the first interceptor missiles.

But Democrats are now questioning all that spending as premature.

“Go ahead and move on with research and development,” said Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, Democrat of California, who is chairwoman of the House subcommittee that oversees the missile defense program. “But as far as putting holes in the ground in Poland, we are saying no.”
But right now, "putting holes in the ground" is as important as Russia's invasion of Georgia in terms of geopolitics. The missiles in question, while still undergoing some testing and improvement, aren't totally unproven either. And at this point, it's not about missiles, it is literally about holes in the ground:
Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said that the system, called the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System, has proved through a series of continuing tests to be reliable, and that the changes being proposed were not radical.

“Is this a perfect system? Absolutely not,” he said. “Is it embryonic? No, we are well beyond that.”


General Obering said he agreed that the missiles should not be deployed in Europe until the testing was complete, which he said was likely to be in 2010. But construction should proceed, he said.

“We can’t wait until the Iranians launch a long-range missile and then start worrying about building out the site,” he said. “If you do that, you are way behind the curve.”
And that appears where Congress is willing to put this deal - behind the curve.

Foreign policy and national security are inextricably linked and the job of the President. Here is an important foreign policy countermove which should be supported in a bi-partisan way given Russia's behavior - and what do we get?
This spring, the House Armed Services Committee voted to withhold authorization for most of the requested funds for the initial construction in Poland, and proposed language that would bar spending to build the system, until the secretary of defense certified that it was reliable.
We get set, predictably, "behind the curve".
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

just to play devils advocate, I have read some knowledgeable pro-defense people who question that any missile shield with present off the shelf technology would do any real good.

Surely it would be a provocative act for no reason if it doesn’t work. and perhaps have a perverse psychological effect if people think that it will work.
Written By: kyleN
perverse psychological effect if people think that it will work.
Preverse??? that sound like just the effect we want.
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
The shield is for countries like Iran. The assumption is that when they finally get a working nuclear tipped missile, their anti-ballistic counter-measures will lag behind that event for a while.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Also the system is meant for a small number of missles as well.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
How is building a defensive system a provocative act?
If I put air bags in a car is that a provocative act that encourages other drivers to ram into me?

A defensive system isn’t provocative unless you couple it with an offensive behavior at least that’s how we view it.

The Russians on the other hand view it as their right to hold countries hostage with their missile capability.

Written By: looker
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks