Amateur Hour With Missile Defense

All we are saying is give surrender an umpteenth chance

The world seems shocked, stunned and dismayed that the chap who palled around with terrorists, lawyered for ACORN, hung around Jeremiah Wright's "church" for twenty years and currently fancies himself as maker of Czars would cave in to an actual Czar, Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Russia was upset with America's plan to set up missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe, worried that all ten vicious, terrifying interceptors could sneak across the border at night to terrorize and devour Russia's entire arsenal of thousands of peaceful, smiley-face warheads, carrying off the children. So under the bus the Poles and Czechs went.
But just five months before he threw 'em under the ol' clunker, Obama was in Prague giving a speech that shockingly wasn't about healthcare. He saluted the Poles and Czechs for being "courageous in agreeing to host" the missile defense sites he planned on scrapping all along anyway. He added that "as long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven." At that point, someone rose and yelled, "You lie!". But, don't worry. Must've been a racist.
Since there's not the slightest evidence of Obambi getting anything from the Russians in the bargain, his media drones think there was a deal! Out of their burning love for America, liberals have always wanted to get rid of Reagan's missile defense idea because (a) Reagan proposed it, (b) the Russians and Iranians would turn all sweet and nice if we scrapped it and (c) the hostile, bellicose Russians and Iranians are hostile and bellicose only because of a few proposed anti-missile sites. (Probably the only hope of keeping America safe now is to enroll Putin and the mullahs in Obamacare.)
But! Remember this? "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Sen. Barack Obama," warned gaffe-o-rama sidekick Joe Biden during the closing days of the '08 campaign, in an apparent -- if last-ditch -- attempt to make a winning case against electing Obama. But if Russia was The Test, Obama failed even to show up for class, which means the Harvard 'genius' flunked by default. And it's not like there weren't various quizzes along the way, leading up to the Russian denouement.
If the Russians were testing Obama 1-2-3, so were the mullahs back in June during the crackdown after the fake elections. Obama's decisive response to the bloody crackdown was benumbing muddle then a switcher-oo, claiming lamely it's none of the Great Satan's business, then, days later, reversing course and urging the mullahs to exercise 'restraint' in their bloody crackdown, after the crackdown was over. The state-runs called Obama's response an impressive display of follow-through.
And the follow-through follows on, with the U.S. set to have talks with Iran next month as a reward for its months of not shooting innocent people in the streets.
And if the Iranians were testing Obama 1-2-3, so was Kim Jong-Il, first by test-firing a ballistic missile that flew over Japan before splashing down in the Pacific, then following up weeks later with a full-blown nuke test. Obama responded with a vigorous, commanding expression of somber disapproval, backed by the threat of escalating it into a full rebuke, and possibly a glowering reprimand, unless the Norks stop distracting America's Dear Leaderless from his "ambitious" domestic agenda, which consists of turning America into North Korea.
And if the Norks were testing Obama 1-2-3, so was Hugo Chavez recently in Honduras, a country in a region where Obama had long ago accepted the role as Hugo's ready little handmaiden. No class-skipping this time! Hugo demanded that deposed dictator Manuel Zelaya be reinstated, with Obambi helpfully shouting 'seconded!' in the background.

And if Hugo was testing Obama's commitment to Hugo's wonderful vision for Latin America, the Taliban have been testing Obama's linguini spine in Afghanistan all year long, even after his speech in Cairo -- the glorious speech that would make the Taliban and al-Qaeda adore us all over again. New, weaker U.S. rules of engagement in Afghanistan were supposed to turn the Taliban into nice men in gratitude. No less than the liberals' greatest elder statesman Ward Churchill would have you believe this. Instead, the newly appeased Taliban sweethearts pocketed the gesture and ratcheted up the body count. Fifty-one U.S. troops were killed in August alone, prompting a 66-page report by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal calling for reinforcements. The Afghan security situation has deteriorated so badly on Obama's watch, the press isn't covering it. As Obama himself told the drive-bys for the Sunday shows, it's just a pesky distraction from the far more important task of ruining the world's best healthcare system by turning it into the post office.
Now we see what 'Hope and Change' actually means eight months on -- the U.S. bailing on its own agreements; Israel, the Poles and Czechs under the bus; chumming up to the mullahs and the Russians, and proving convincingly that it really is possible to be weaker than Jimmy Carter.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"

Another good one JohnHuang2. Thanks for the observations.

Just think if this guy Obama in the WH really did try, he might take down the entire country. /sarc.

The guy Obama is like Avis compared to Jimmuh Cahtah: “We try harder”. /sarc.

‘Cost was a factor in the decision. The Wall Street Journal quotes a senior administration official as stating “… a ground-based interceptor is generally about a $70 million-per-missile asset going after a $10-$15 million [Iranian] missile.” The official said “… the trade is not a good one economically.”’

That is incredibly lame.

That's like saying why spend $2,000 for bullet proof vest to stop a 50 cent bullet.

It isn't the cost of the missile or bullet that matters. It is the resulting damage...

Obama’s reasons for scrapping missile defense are the same reasons he gives for scrapping the US insurance and healthcare industries: “My new plan will do a much better job, extend protection further, and cost far less money!”

"‘Cost was a factor in the decision. The Wall Street Journal quotes a senior administration official as stating “… a ground-based interceptor is generally about a $70 million-per-missile asset going after a $10-$15 million [Iranian] missile.” The official said “… the trade is not a good one economically.”’

We have people running things that are that stupid? Heaven help us.

Pretty incredible isn’t it.

Gives one pause at the idiocy to say such a thing...

And people just accepted it apparently...

I will

AFPhys