This comes under the rubric of “How much plainer can she make it?” Seriously! First we note that Con Coughlin apparently missed out on Hillary’s brilliant address at the Brookings Institute on Friday (see previous post) where she took a few moments to go off-topic and speak about the new missile defense plan. Now we have D K Jamaal of Examiner.com with his version of The Silent Hillary Lie: Why has Hillary stayed silent on Obama’s missile defense surrender to Russia? So, I repeat: She is not silent on this issue!
Back in June, at a town hall meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, Hillary introduced the concept of a “defense umbrella” in the Middle East to protect that area from the potential nuclearization of Iran. It caused a brief dust-up in the MSM since some interpreted her remark as implying the defense umbrella would be nuclear which she never said. How odd, then, that a few months later some do not recognize this new plan as Hillary’s Defense Umbrella.
Is it no longer incumbent upon journalists to research the material they write about? How did Coughlin and Jamaal miss that speech at Brookings? It is exceedingly easy to find. You see there is this website state.gov where video and text of Hillary’s speechs, press conferences, appearances, etc. are available. It is not difficult to locate these sources of her actual words!
Well, it seems Hillary is aware that The Silent Hillary Lie is circulating, and to combat it she just published an op ed in the Financial Times: The new system offers a real missile defence. So Con, and D K and all of you who cannot seem to discover where her opinion on this is stated, there it is – translated into British English so as to make her points eminently clear in language you can understand. (I love it when Hillary writes with a British accent!) I encourage you to follow the link, open a free account, and read the article. FT requests that we not cut and post to websites, so I shall respect that protocol. The point is, she is not silent. She is quite actively favoring this plan both orally and in print. And, BTW D K, America’s Iron Butterfly? Hmmmmmm. I need to think about that one, but my take from your article is that you actually do like her. I appreciate that. At this blog, we deal so often with those who do not. I wish you the best and hope Hillary’s explanation clarifies for you the wisdom of this new plan.
UPDATE: This op-ed has since been circulated on the webpage of The United States Mission to NATO as well as at Dipnote. That being the case, a full reprint is below.
Dipnote
A New Approach for Missile Defense
Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Sep 20, 2009 – 06:47 PMSecretary Clinton’s op-ed, “The New System Offers a Real Missile Defense,” appeared in the Financial Times today. Secretary Clinton wrote:
Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama approved the recommendations 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 threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and the technology that we have to confront it. And it is a decision that will leave America stronger, and more capable of defending our troops, our interests, and our allies.
With the president’s decision, we will deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program, so that we will be able swiftly to 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 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 it evolves.
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.
We are not “shelving” missile defense. We are enhancing our capacity to protect our interests and our allies. We are not walking away from our allies but are deploying a system that enhances allied security, advances our co-operation with Nato, and actually places more resources in more countries.
Two of those allies are Poland and the Czech Republic, and we deeply appreciate their willingness to host parts of the previously planned system. We will continue to co-operate closely with both nations and both will have the opportunity to be closely involved with missile defense. I want to 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.
For 60 years, the Nato alliance has been a force for peace, prosperity and security in Europe and around the world because of the commitment to collective security embodied in Article V of its charter: An attack on one ally is an attack on all. An attack on London or Warsaw is an attack on New York or Washington. Nato demonstrated this commitment after the September 11 terrorist attacks, when for the first time, the alliance invoked Article V and Nato sent assets to the U.S. to help protect us from additional terrorist attacks.
Finally, let me reiterate what the president said last Wednesday: This decision was not about Russia; it was about Iran and the threat that its ballistic missile programmes continue to pose. And because of this decision, we will be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat, and to do so with technology that works.
While we pursue this new path, we will make clear our readiness to engage Iran and focus its leaders on a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.
But the security of our allies and our forces cannot wait. That is why we are moving ahead with a new approach for missile defense.
Another proof of the lack of commitment to search for the truth!
LikeLike
I think Obama should have sent Hillary over to Europe to sit down and discuss this plan with the Poles, the Czechs, the Brits, etc. before he announced it.
LikeLike
The way these things are done, I am sure they were well aware of this for a long time. When Hillary rolled out that idea in June, it was already agreed upon at the White House. Hillary explained in the interview posted at Secretary Clinton blog the protocol they use for decisions like these, and it was very likely already agreed upon before she went to Asia.
When Scotland decided to release Al Megrahi this summer, the UK made a big deal of saying that Obama and Hillary KNEW about this in advance. Yes, of course they were told, not that they could have done anything to deter the Scots from doing it. Certainly we did not spring this on our allies without carefully explaining our intent and the rationale well in advance.
LikeLike
I don’t know… It looks like somebody dropped the ball in the PR department and I’m sure it wasn’t Hillary. I am also suspicious of the timing of this announcement, given the deal between Russia and General Electric.
LikeLike
Well, that would not have been under Hillary’s control. If anything, she surprised everyone by bringing it up as early as June. But, really, a mobile force makes much more sense in so many ways.
LikeLike
I agree Still4Hill, this was not as big a surprise as some are making it seem- the idea that some in Europe were totally caught of guard is silly. We have not turned our back on our allies.
I have to admit my bias here- for decades, going back to the Cold War, we have been spending hundreds of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on missile defense systems (remember Star Wars in the 80s?) that don’t work and are nothing but a boon to the military industrial complex. I can’t help but feel like lately all this talk of an imminent threat from Iran, an escalation in rhetoric with Russia, etc. is a huge Deja Vu back to the days when some in Washington viewed everything through the lens of the Cold War, whether the threat was real or imagined. I’m not saying there are no threats out there, but since the Iraq War and the lies that led up to it, I am very suspicious when I hear beltway pundits and think tank “scholars” play this stuff up.
And as Jen brought up, the deal with General Electric (who owns MSNBC by the way) seems suspect in terms of timing.
LikeLike
Thanks, Stacy. My take is that since Hillary is talking close-range and mid-range missiles, this is not for domestic protection. It is to pacify allies who depend on us for defense (or will start a missile race of their own).
We may never need this system – but it beats breaking ground, installing a fixed system that is ultimately detectable by satellite, and spending what THAT would have cost. Fixed systems are so mid-20th century. I live near an old NIKE base that became a satellite campus of the university I work for in the 80’s and now has been completely transformed into condos.
In assessing this, we need to remember from whence that scrapped plan came: The Bush Administration. Yes, dump it!
LikeLike