Before this goes viral as another toxic meme, DHS will put forth an effort to nip this in the bud. Telegraph.co.uk published this nonsense by Con Coughlin today: Where is Hillary Clinton in the great missile defence surrender? Well, Con, she is not exactly shrinking from making commentary as you imply!
As this AP article, Clinton counters critics of Obama missile defense, asserts, Secretary Clinton views this plan as an improvement over the previous Bush Administration plan, and has said so at no less an open and transparent forum than the Brookings Institution as she outlined plans for U.S. participation in next week’s U.N. General Assembly.
Coughlin’s snide remarks, accompanied by an uncommonly unflattering photo of our lovely and very photogenic SOS is yet another fiction of the same warp and woof as previous fairy tales ascribing hesitation, lack of initiative, and silence to our Secretary of State when the opposite is true. How dare he!
FYI, Coughlin, she is absolutely vocal on this issue, and as it happens, is in agreement with this new plan. Your story is a lie. Read her remarks at the Brookings Institution. She has made herself very clear on this issue.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Brookings Institution
Washington, DC
September 18, 2009SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, it is a great delight to be back here at Brookings through that revolving door, which really does go both directions. I spoke with Strobe shortly after I was asked to take this job as Secretary of State and began thinking about who needed to be in this new Administration. And he ruefully said, “I know you’re going to decimate the place.” (Laughter.) I said, well, yes, we are, but that’s all part of the revolving door – people who go in and out of administrations, who do the work that is done here every day at Brookings, such high-quality work in many respects, visionary, as well as analytical. And I’m very grateful for this farm team that you have led so well for so many years and the opportunity to work with them now in this new capacity.
I also want to just say a word of personal appreciation to Strobe. As most of you know, he’s been a friend of my husband’s and mine, starting, of course, with my husband at Oxford and then shortly afterwards. And he and the wonderful Brooke were dear, dear friends over all of these years. And I’m pleased to look out and see Adrian and Devin, the next generation.
I also want to thank Martin Indyk and John Thornton for their leadership as well. And to all of the Diplomatic Corps, the ambassadors who are here with us today, I thank each and every one of you. I’ve had the opportunity to do bilateral meetings with most of you, with your foreign minister, or in some instance, the head of state. And I appreciate your being with us today. I also see some of the wonderful people who have joined the team at State and USAID who are here as well, and I express my appreciation to all of them.
I thank Brookings for this opportunity to join you on the eve of UNGA. It is a strange acronym. And it causes a lot of moaning and groaning in some circles. Henry Kissinger was famously critical of UNGA, and others have been expressing over the years their concern and disappointment with the United Nations. But I believe that at its best, the United Nations is not only a critical, central institution, but one in which the United States has a lot of equities. So I’m actually looking forward – now, it has nothing to do with the fact that it’s in New York, and I get to go home – but it is a personal as well as an official obligation that I am looking forward to.
Let me begin, though, by echoing the President’s statement yesterday concerning his approval of the recommendations not only of the Pentagon, but of his entire national security team to deploy a stronger and more comprehensive missile defense system in Europe. This decision came after a lengthy and in-depth review of our assessment of the threats posed, particularly the threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and the technology that we have today, and what might be available in the future to confront it. We believe this is a decision that will leave America stronger, and more capable of defending our troops, our interests, and our allies.
Let me be clear about what this new system will do relative to the previous program, which was many years from being deployed. With the President’s decision, we will deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program. We will be able to swiftly counter the threat posed by Iran’s short and medium-range ballistic missiles. We will deploy missile defense that is more comprehensive than the previous program with more interceptors in more places and with a better capacity to protect all of our friends and allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money. And we will preserve the flexibility to adjust our approach to the threat as the threat evolves.
So make no mistake – if you support missile defense, which I did as a senator for eight years, then this is a stronger and smarter approach than the previous program. It does what missile defense is actually supposed to do. It defends America and our allies. Now I know we’ve heard criticism of this plan from some quarters. But much of that criticism is not yet connected to the facts. We are not, quote, “shelving” missile defense. We are deploying missile defense sooner than the Bush Administration planned to do so. And we are deploying a more comprehensive system.
We are not reducing our capacity to protect our interests and our allies from Iran. By contrast, we are increasing that capacity and focusing it on our best understanding of Iran’s current capabilities. And most of all, we would never, never walk away from our allies. We have recommitted ourselves to our Article 5 obligations under NATO. We have sent that message in bilateral and multilateral settings from the President’s and my trips to every other encounter and venue that we have been in over the last many months. We are deploying a system that enhances the security of our NATO allies. It actually advances our cooperation with NATO. And it actually places more resources in more countries.
Two of our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, were very willing to host parts of the previous planned system, and we deeply appreciate that. We will continue to cooperate closely with both nations, for instance, through rotation of a Patriot battery in Poland and close missile defense research and development with Czech companies. As we explore land-based interceptors going forward, we have made it clear that those two countries will be at the top of the list. And let me underscore that we are bound together by our common commitment as NATO allies and also by deep historical, economic and cultural ties that will never be broken.
Finally, let me reiterate what the President said yesterday. This decision was not about Russia. It was about Iran and the threat that its ballistic missile program poses. And because of this position, we believe we will be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat, and to do so with technology that works and a higher degree of confidence that what we pledge to do, we can actually deliver.
Here is the video. I encourage you to watch the entire hour. There is nothing hesitant, opaque, or shrinking about this Secretary of State. I see and hear confidence, knowledge, and brilliance as I always have. Hillary Rodham Clinton is unique, a phenomenon. She shines like the sun and blooms like a rose. The Homegirls love her!
I just posted the link to this article over at HillBuzz. They were discussing Hillary and missile defense and some folks are NOT happy that she is supporting Obama on this issue.
LikeLike
When I read her explanation, this makes PERFECT sense. Why deal with fixed bases? They are targets. Why wait to build when you can deploy? I actually LIKE this plan SO much better than Bush’s. Who cares from whence it emanates?
LikeLike
Bush’s plan was basically the same as Reagan’s “Star Wars”, which I can remember. It may have made sense back in the 1980s when we were still engaged in the Cold War, but who honestly thinks Russia is going to bomb Poland or the Czech Republic in this day and age? Iran, OTOH, is a real threat to Israel and to every other country within reach.
LikeLike
Well, Bush was more “Son of Reagan” than “Son of Bush.” I think this new plan is basically Hillary’s Defense Umbrella.
(If that’s what it is, is she the President?)
LikeLike
OH! I see it remains out there. Normita just sent me this:
http://www.examiner.com/x-19823-PostPartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d18-Why-has-Hillary-stayed-silent-on-Obamas-missile-defense-surrender-to-Russia
Same theme. Apparently this guy also somehow missed Hillary’s address at Brookings.
Hello, everybody! This IS the “defense umbrella” Hillary spoke about in Bangkok in June.
(Iron Butterfly, huh? I need to think about that one.)
LikeLike
I was surprised about this article too, where’s Marc Rubin in this? Perhaps they should compare notes.
LikeLike
All they really need to do is what Stacy and I are always ranting: go to http://www.state.gov/ . The video is right there along with the full text. One sees within minutes that she begins off-topic addressing this issue rather thoroughly. She was there to discuss the initiatives at UNGA this week, not the missile defense plan, But she took the time, and it’s right there for anyone to see and hear.
LikeLike
Stacy at Secretary Clinton blog found an op ed written by Hillary and published a little while ago further explaining her position IN FAVOR OF the new plan! (Of course since it is her plan that she outlined in Bangkok).
Secretary Clinton’s Op-Ed on Missile Defense
LikeLike