Jay Bookman

By Paul

August 20, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

I may have found a supporter for cutting the US defense budget.

Maybe.

More later. Out for a while -

By TW

August 20, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

I would just like to take a moment to thank those responsible for the secret offshore drilling that has dropped our gas prices forty cents on a gallon over the last three weeks, proving the point that supply was, indeed, the problem…

By AJC/DNC Management

August 20, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Anybody want to guess what Bookman would write if a missile was launched from Russia and hit Poland?

Would it not be a another taunting of the U.S. like they are currently doing in Georgia?

So now we are getting “prepared” and they whine anyway?

By hillbilly ragger

August 20, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Jay, I’m pretty sure the argument will be framed by right-wingers as “if it upsets our enemy, it must be a good idea.”

I came across this moronic, reactionary line of argument about four years ago in a Bill O’Reilly column. In his case, Bill was arguing on behalf of potential Democratic presidential candidates, and his SOLE criteria as to whether that candidate had foreign policy cred was whether or not that person becoming President would upset Osama bin Laden.

I think this line of argument is powerful among the Twenty-five Percenter faithful. I can only hope it isn’t powerful among the rest of the voting public, but they’ve let me down time and again, before.

By hillbilly ragger

August 20, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this

Shorter LuckoTrool @ 9.49: “It’s not stupidly throwing money at a problem when WE CONSERVATIVES do it!”

By Taxpayer

August 20, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Jay, unlike the war in Iraq and other US mis-adventures, the long-term advantages, etc., of such an installation could outweigh the short-term cost. I just hope that our administration did not once again promise more than they can deliver. By the way, have you read about the truck-mounted anti-missle laser. That ain’t your run of the mill CO2 or Neodymium-Yag if you know what I mean.

By Bud Wiser

August 20, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

Are you referring to the “Welch Report” about the missile defense system being deployed? If so, that report was compiled somewhere in the year 2000, and it was talking about the system deployment in 2003 or 2005.

Is the New York Times your new source for “news”? While informative in part, the last half of the article essentially consisted of partisan editorializing by the ‘reporter’, whose position was quite clear. And, as opposed to the headline in the article, only one Democrat was cited in text.

Griping and whining about taunting the Rooskies, or your childish psycho, I mean psychic reference to ‘We’re number one!” aside, had you stuck to the meat of the perceived problem, about who is actually paying for it, your article may have been more effective.

Anyway, who is this system ultimately designed to defend, the USA or Poland? I have no problem of us getting in the face of Ivan by planting a defense system near his borders, if that system is to protect OUR nation as opposed to Poland. If it designed solely for Polish defense then, well, I guess we do have a problem. The only good thing to come out of Poland anyway is kielbasa, and that won’t be much of a loss.

By ByteMe

August 20, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

@Taxpayer: I definitely agree that there are some long-term benefits. I think Jay is pointing out that Europe gets the bulk of those benefits and since they have a pretty good economy right now, why are we paying the bulk of the costs when we don’t get the bulk of the benefits?

Heh. It’s a very “fiscally conservative” question, yes? Except to the “war good, deficits good, liberals bad” wingnuts.

By gttim

August 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

The reason it is being done is because it is a transfer of taxpayer wealth to private companies. Whether it works, is needed, or protects somebody other than us is immaterial. The whole purpose is to give taxpayer wealth to private corporations.

By "The Corporal"

August 20, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Jay:

I always give credit where credit is due. You are “el correcto” on this one. And while you’re at it, how much do the Saudi’s, et al owe us ???

By Taxpayer

August 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

I am all for booting all these fiscally irresponsible politicians out of office (especially these new-age Republicans) and I am definitely in favor of cutting back on military expenditures especially ones that really have nothing to do with protecting US soil from real — not imagined — aggressors. Less government is good government in general. But, as a means of leading the world in a more desired direction, for example, I certainly favor the high-tech defense approach over the in your face aggressive approach especially if the high tech stuff has non-military uses that can be exploited for “every day” use such as telecommunications, satellite launches, air traffic control, etc. I also think that this approach beats the heck out of conducting offensive military exercises around the world. I’m looking forward to seeing the laser missile defense system or similar systems put into operation, for example, but they do need to be a small and affordable portion of the US expenditures.

By Bud Wiser

August 20, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Make the EU pay, if the defense system is for them. With the devalued dollar, it won’t cost them as much.

There could be a problem though, collecting, that is, because of the septic flow of Islam, increasingly fouling up (pun intended) their politics.

By Copyleft

August 20, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Who says Europe is dumb? They let us defend them, while they spend their money on their OWN people.

By N-GA

August 20, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

Jay,

You are on target, but really leave the larger point unaddressed. This deployment is no different than what the US has done globally since the end of WWII.

For 60 years the US has stationed troops on bases all over the world. And the US paid literally $billions in lease payments to the host countries. They were also required to hire local people, outsource to local companies, etc.

In the meantime, countries like Japan and Germany had severe restrictions on their military expenses. So, since they were able to focus more of their government spending on other things, their economies recovered quickly from the devastation of war and now equal or exceed the prosperity of the US.

Whooda thunkit ???

By AH

August 20, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

Hey sometimes you have to pay Beta users for their cooperation. So we put a system in place in Poland so that we can perfect it and install a better system here in the US.

By Rob

August 20, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

It has been reported numerous times by numerous sources that this system is being installed to protect U.S. interests in Europe. We have many embassies, bases and other interests all over Europe.

Why the need to report otherwise or suggest it’s being done for any other reason?

By RealityKing

August 20, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

Funny how those who constantly whine about the senseless deaths of military personnel seem to always put money ahead of any type of deterrence that would save them. 500,000 Americans died in WWII, do you need more proof that Europe doesn’t know how to defend, much less manage itself??

By BS Aplenty

August 20, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Bud Wiser

While I generally agree with your political positions, I must take umbrage at the remark about Poland or kielbasa.

Poland is now a remarkably democratic country that led (you remember the “Solidarity” movement, right) the freedom movement in Europe - in the face of the Soviets occupation. They’re the kind of people that, when you help liberate them, they acutally respond well to democracy. Contrast this behavior with our more recent attempts at liberation in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I know you were just penning some minor humor, but I would be remiss not to commend the Polish people and government on their successful transition from forced Soviet satellite to full-blooded US ally.

Carry on.

By @@

August 20, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

I’m inclined to agree with you on this one Jay. I don’t have knowledge of Europe’s finances, but I do know the cost of their social programs leave little for defense.

Unfortunately, the dems resistance makes it look as though Putin’s intimidation tactics have infiltrated our Congress. Remember what I said about the unforeseen sequence of events?

Timing is critical, and the timing on this one is off.

By getalife "whiners"

August 20, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

And what’s in it for us?

The bill.

The makers of this system gets our money, Russia bombs it, they get our money again.

Military industry wins again.

Its a lose, lose for the people but business as usual.

By Taxpayer

August 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Some of the military expenditures that I do find quite offensive are most of the things that our current administration is doing in Iraq. Those expenditures have a way of making $712 million look like chump change. It’s analogous to offering to address pork-barrel spending by cutting out $500 million worth of projects. The politicians that successfully throw that sales pitch are laughing all the way to the bank — at us, the taxpayers that voted them in. They happen to be the same ones chanting “Drill, Drill, Drill” as well.

By @@

August 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

A little addendum to my previous post Jay. Consider for a moment how the leftists her in the U.S. have, for years, touted Europe as a model for social justice.

Had we listened to them, we’d find ourselves in the same boat sinking from the weight of The Big Bear. We can and should avoid allowing this great country from sinking into the abyss.

Vote for the party that promotes a strong national defense of OUR freedoms from oppressive governments, both domestic and foreign.

Vote Republican.

By Just a Thought

August 20, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

I hope and pray, that it does not take the mortgage crisis to hit home really hard, and people start loosing jobs, and many middle-class Americans having to wait for government relief, for this kind of macho talk like the ones we heard at the start of the Iraq war, “Bring it on”, “We are #1”, etc., to stop.

Unfortunately, if the global economic center of gravity shifts from our country, no one really will respect us for our once glorious past. Only if one is strong at home, can one be strong outside. Let us Republicans (and rest of the country loving folks out there) follow the principles of family values (meaning make it strong - financially, morally, etc), be strong (not just put a strong face and some boxing gloves on, while everyone can see that a financially weak nation has also its pants around its ankles), preserve our quality of life first (not just focus on nation building some where else), and be who we are (work hard, play hard, and have a free spirit).

Unfortunately there will always be unrest in the world, some that has existed for a 1000 years and some that will probably exist for another 1000 years. We hope and wish it is restrained, but we cannot be the local police to the world. We also cannot get into the middle of them and take sides saying that its in our national interest and moral duty, it will turn evil against us.

Similarly there will always be evil in the world that needs to be defeated, and for that we need the cooperation of all around, even with countries we call “Axis of Evil” today. We may need more friends than we can count on our fingers.

By Midori

August 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Vote Republican

why????

haven’t we seen enough incompetence and disasters?

By Bud Wiser

August 20, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

You are correct about the Polish people, BS Aplenty, so mea culpa from me to you.

We should take into consideration, however, the situation escalating as Russia may attempt to reaffirm itself as a premier power, by ‘annexing’ such states as Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Kazakhstan, you get the picture. The eastern Caspian Sea states may become much more vulnerable because of their oil value.

The EU’s consistent impotence on political matters of importance seems to be based on a ‘let America do it’ mentality when it comes to sticking up for helpless sovereign nations that may be confronted by Ivan. It no doubt explains their foot dragging on the admittance of nations under the NATO umbrella. They are afraid of the Rooskies, no doubt about it. And do not discount the Muslim influence as they continue to move their stain westward into France, Spain, and England.

To Taxpayer: you said”… and I am definitely in favor of cutting back on military expenditures especially ones that really have nothing to do with protecting US soil from real — not imagined — aggressors.” So what way do you want it? Is your appeasement approach one of waiting until the missiles are raining down, they decrying the fact that they were not previously installed and ready? That is what your foolish statement implies, that you are willing to wait until the attack begins to defend yourself, as opposed to making your defenses to be seen by your potential aggressors perhaps deter or put off entirely their attack upon you.

It is a childishly naive idea that you spin, that the world will be a better place if we unilaterally disarm, leading by example to the rest of the world so that they will see how sincere and nice we are, and that they can now be our friends. No, actually that is beyond childish, it is stupid. Go smoke your weed with your buddies to fry whatever brain matter you have left.

To RealityKing: I could not have said it better myself. The mindless libs want that military money for more social ‘programs’, probably adding to the trillions spent in the last 50+ years in the black community under their auspices. We see what a success that has been.

To Copyleft: Yeah, we see that for sure. The media is a flood with all the ‘success’ stories of the socialist universal health care, to which you are probably referring Transatlantic aviation has never been so profitable as they largely fly to the US for their medical care, because they would die waiting for an appointment. And yes, we really defended them well too didn’t we, from the bombings in Madrid and London, and the protest marches and burnings in Paris? You are such a tool.

By Taxpayer

August 20, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Bud, Are you still suffering from reading comprehension problems. I can be available to help you with that problem, for a nominal fee.

By Mrs. Godzilla

August 20, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

The US missile defence system is the magic pudding that will never run outPoland is just the latest fall guy for an American foreign policy dictated by military industrial lobbyists in Washington…..

Missile defense in Poland….brought to you by the folks in DC who have gotten most everything else wrong for the last 8 years.

By Mrs. Godzilla

August 20, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

FYI

Cleveland-area congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones had a massive aneurysm last night and is on life support. It does not look good.

Please send up some thoughts and prayers to her and her family.

She is Ohio’s first African-American woman to be elected to Congress and has served Cleveland’s east side for 10 years. She is also one of Hillary Clinton’s most trusted supporters.

Let’s hope she pulls through.

UPDATE (12:14 pm EDT) : Officials were to update her condition at noon. At least one local news station, WOIO Channel 19, is reporting that the situation is grim and life support will be removed this afternoon.

By ByteMe

August 20, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Bud, you said:

The media is a flood with all the ‘success’ stories of the socialist universal health care, to which you are probably referring Transatlantic aviation has never been so profitable as they largely fly to the US for their medical care, because they would die waiting for an appointment.

How does your world view fit with the reality documented in numerous places that Americans are increasingly flying overseas to places like INDIA to get their surgeries done, because of lower costs and equivalent outcomes? Some insurance companies have even started to pay for these medical “vacations” because it’s cheaper than paying for the medical care they would get here.

We’re not #1 in health care. We’re no longer even in the top 10. Do the homework outside of the rah-rah sites that proclaim that America is perfect and everyone who doesn’t see through those same lenses is a “panty-wasted librul”, whatever that is.

BTW, trans-continental flights are proftable, because there are fewer carriers, restricted landing slots, and no viable alternatives. It’s a supply and demand thing with limits on the supply side.

By T

August 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

We have an abundance of funds for missles in Poland? Wow. We are a world power.
Oh, well maybe China will lend us the money for that too.

By RP

August 20, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Jay i have just started reading your columns in the past 3 months or so. In tha time, while a small period, I do have one question. Is there anything about the United States that you are proud of?

By Bud Wiser

August 20, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

Well ByteMe, compare these numbers and give me your simplistic answer:

About 200,000 Americans fly abroad each year for medical treatment. A large number of those are no doubt for procedures not practiced in the USA because of the strangulation of the medical profession by lawyers.

There are estimated over 22 Million Mexicans in the USA illegally, many of which are here just for the ‘free’ medical care they already receive, courtesy USA taxpayers. If you can, read this article about Parkland Hospital in Dallas, and try to remember in your very small mind that this is just one hospital in one city.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

Obviously my “world” is a bit more grounded in fact and numbers than your cherry-picked simple minded approach. I suggest that you do your own homework, tool, before yapping your jaws at an obviously superior intellect. But of course, the ignorant liberal constructs their fantasies from very small numbers, don’t they?

I give you GLOBAL WARMING!!!

http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

By AJC/DNC Management

August 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

All this whining about Europe’s lack of responsibility and here I thought the liberals wanted us to “be more like them.”

Hahahaha, it’s funny but they really do, they want us to be sorry, soft and ripe for invasion.

Sick.

By AJC/DNC Management

August 20, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

“Whatsoever you do to the least among you, you do unto me”-Matthew 25:40”

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate’s half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

“No-one knows who I am,” he told the magazine, before claiming: “I live here on less than a dollar a month.”

His own brother?

By Greg

August 20, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

Hrm, I hate to use the cliche “WWII” example, but dear god It fits too well here. If you let other countries step on your European allies, then those countries extend their influence there, and use that influence to hurt you. Just because we can do nothing but build up our national defenses on our own land (isolationism anyone?) doesn’t mean we’re protected! Economic weapons are a powerful force, which can also lead a nation to be a better military force. By doing this, we’re showing our friends we’re there for them, which in turn is returned in better economic ties and hurting those economic ties with our ‘not-so-best-friends’

Sure on paper it looks like we’re paying for europes defense, but between the lines we’re really paying for our military and economic defense.

And if we find a way to get off natural gas as a heating source, and gasoline as a primary car fuel, we can help Europe get off Russian exports, and hence weaken Russia.

By Greg

August 20, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Hrm, I hate to use the cliche “WWII” example, but dear god It fits too well here. If you let other countries step on your European allies, then those countries extend their influence there, and use that influence to hurt you, Like what Hitler wanted to do by conquering Europe. Think of the massive economic power he would have had, and then think of the massive military power he would have had with all that money!

Just because we ‘can’ do nothing but build up our national defenses on our own land (isolationism anyone?) doesn’t mean we’re protected! Economic weapons are a powerful force, which can also lead a nation to be a better military force. By doing this, we’re showing our friends we’re there for them, which in turn is returned in better economic ties and hurting those economic ties with our ‘not-so-best-friends’.

Sure on paper it looks like we’re paying for europes defense, but between the lines we’re really paying for our military and economic defense.

And if we find a way to get off natural gas as a heating source, and gasoline as a primary car fuel, we can help Europe get off Russian exports, and hence weaken Russia’s economy. A weak Russian economy will lead Russia down the same path the USSR took; Bad economy coupled with a rabid desire to have an amazing military to counter the US. And I think we all know how that worked out.

Sure I might be idealistic, but so are people who think we can isolate ourselves form the world and be totally safe and happy in the long run.

By T

August 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Greg

Nice point.

I thought at one time Russia saw this as a direct threat to them. I could be wrong though.

By Mrs. Godzilla

August 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

LOS ANGELES (KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO) — A controversy has erupted over John McCain’s wife Cindy. Turns out, she has a half-sister, even though she said otherwise on CNN last month……National Public Radio says Mrs. McCain’s half-sister is Kathleen Portalski who says they have the same father. This means Mrs. McCain is not an only child, as NPR had initially reported. Portalski says while she was growing up she saw her father and sometimes her half-sister on holidays and birthdays. She says now all she wants is an apology from Cindy McCain, and acknowledgment that they are half-sisters.

By RW-(the original)

August 20, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

It’s pretty easy to put this expenditure in it’s own little bubble and ask why Poland doesn’t pay for it especially when you state as fact that we had to beg them to let us spend the money, but that’s a rather simplistic viewpoint.

If Poland loudly proclaimed that they wanted the missile defense they’re also setting themselves up for a ground invasion so it’s best to have it sound like we’re strong arming them. There’s also something to be said for the argument made above about BETA users.

What are the costs associated with having Poland wiped off the map or taken over by Russia? Somehow I think it would dwarf 712 million.

By Shane

August 20, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

so hold on Jay - yesterday it was “when are we going to defend Georgia? Come on US of A - get in there and kick some Russian butts!” and now today it’s “We shouldn’t be spending money to protect other countries”

Can anyone here say WTF? Jay, I hate reading your columns because you, much like Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore and numerous other vocal ‘LEFTISTS’ make all the rest of us trying to put forth a logical argument (who are almost always accused of being Leftists - i think anybody who makes an attempt at a well reason argument instead of a knee-jerk reaction gets labeled a leftist pinko at this point) look stupid - you’re hurting your own team.

Shut up - go away - let some other Lefty write a better column so we can all put an end to the chicanery of the RIGHT.

F GWB

By @@

August 20, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

Greg:

Yours is a thoughtful post. Let me ask you this though — I’m here to learn.

Is it not true that we pay leases to operate our bases in Europe?

I am all for supporting our allies, but when we find ourselves stretched too thin because our allies won’t or aren’t able to put forth sufficient manpower in defense, we end up letting our allies (Georgia) fall victim.

By JAY BOOKMAN

August 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Shane, if that’s how you read yesterday’s piece, then you misread it or I miswrote it.

It was instead an effort to point out that we shouldn’t talk big and bad to our friends, our enemies and even to ourselves when in reality we have no means or intention of backing it up.

By Jake

August 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

Good thing Bookman isn’t in charge of U.S. foreign policy or we’d saving the mud people of Darfur instead on ensuring the flow of oil from Iraq and through the Strait of Hormuz.

By "The Corporal"

August 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

So, the democrats have “uninvited” their only four-star general to speak at the convention and private Obama got a very cool reception at the VFW event. What’s with the democrats and our military?

Distrust!

By Hillbilly Deluxe

August 20, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

I am in favor of putting the missles in Poland if Poland wants them. I do, however, believe that western Europe should bear a large part of the expense. If they don’t want to help foot the bill maybe we should rethink our position in NATO.

As for Poland, I don’t have one ounce of Polish ancestory but I do know that the people of Poland have struggled for freedom for centuries. It would be a shame not to help them try to hang on to it.

By @@

August 20, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

And also Greg, does our military personnel overseas not stimulate the economy in the areas within and around Europe?

By @@

August 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly Deluxe:

Poland definitely wanted the missiles in Poland. They cleaned their cabinet of anybody who had been opposing them in hopes of a better (more from America) deal.

Came down to an “if not now, then maybe never” choice.

By AL

August 20, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

It’s called containment. All that stupid diatribe and it can be answered in one word CONTAINMENT. After all we could be using all that tax money to educate illegal Mexican children or buy their Democratic votes (same thing). We could use that tax money to sponsor all the Democratic earmarks in every bill that goes before Congress. That amounts to more money than the missile system. You are almost as good at half truths as Tucker.

By RW-(the original)

August 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

RIP Representative Jones

By ByteMe

August 20, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

Bud, speaking of simplistic:

There are estimated over 22 Million Mexicans in the USA illegally, many of which are here just for the ‘free’ medical care they already receive

Oh, yes, and those berries you ate this morning for breakfast picked by the people only here just for the “free medical care” didn’t have to work a bit for it, nosireee…. (roll eyes)

And yes I’m VERY aware already of how emergency room visits (read: non-emergency, but not covered either) are exploding both from illegal immigrants (I have trouble thinking of any human as an “alien”) and the 45 million Americans who cannot afford or get health care coverage at a huge cost to taxpayers, since they tend to go to the inner city hospitals that use public funds to cover their budget shortfalls.

But you were originally talking about trans-continental airline traffic and how it’s all about coming here for medical care. Can’t imagine too many Mexican immigrants can afford (or even need) to do that.

Or did you forget what you were talking about?

Stop trying to be insulting. Anyone can do that. And it doesn’t help your argument.

By kevin welch

August 20, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

The missile defense system in question is designed and located where it is to provide optimal defensive coverage for the U.S. east coast. Because of its location it can also provide residual coverage for most but not all of Europe. So, it is there to protect the U.S. first and secondarily, Europe only as a consequence of its location. The Europeans did not ask for this residual coverage so we should not ask them to pay for it.
If you would look at a globe of the earth (not a flat map) you would see that the location of the radar and missile interceptors are odeally situated to defend against a missile fired from Southwest Asia at the U.S. east coast. The system has little or no capability to intercept ant missiles fired by Russia at the U.S. These missiles would be fired in a nirtherly direction over the North Pole. This geometry, between the interceptor site and Russian missile trajectory makes it virtually impossibe to intercept a Russian missile. That is unless the Russians are going to attack Poland or Georgia or Ukraine. Could that be the Russians real objection? That they will not be able to intimidate their neighbors with threats of missile attack if our system is in place?

By kevin welch

August 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

The missile defense system in question is designed and located where it is to provide optimal defensive coverage for the U.S. east coast. Because of its location it can also provide residual coverage for most but not all of Europe. So, it is there to protect the U.S. first and secondarily, Europe only as a consequence of its location. The Europeans did not ask for this residual coverage so we should not ask them to pay for it.
If you would look at a globe of the earth (not a flat map) you would see that the location of the radar and missile interceptors are odeally situated to defend against a missile fired from Southwest Asia at the U.S. east coast. The system has little or no capability to intercept ant missiles fired by Russia at the U.S. These missiles would be fired in a nirtherly direction over the North Pole. This geometry, between the interceptor site and Russian missile trajectory makes it virtually impossibe to intercept a Russian missile. That is unless the Russians are going to attack Poland or Georgia or Ukraine. Could that be the Russians real objection? That they will not be able to intimidate their neighbors with threats of missile attack if our system is in place?

By Midori

August 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

Rep. Jones is not dead.

She is in critical condition.

Fox is not News.

By Bud Wiser

August 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

I see that the latest polling has McCain with a 5% lead, this after Hussein Obama had a 15% lead just two months ago.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1117409,elexpoll082008.article

The sky is falling!

The sky is falling!

The sky is falling!

Also, see what one of the ‘brothers’ has to say about your candidate. It will not be pretty for you Obamaniacs, and I dare say you won’t be capable of watching the whole thing (@ 9 minutes)

http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr07-28-08.html

The convention isn’t even here yet and Obama is sinking like a lead balloon. Enjoy the campaign, tools!

By "The Corporal"

August 20, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Secretary Rice says the President will protect Poland as if it is U.S. territory! May I ask with what (since all of our troops are bogged down in the Middle East and Korea) and why didn’t we protect Georgia?

By Keith

August 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

Excellent column Comrade Bookman.

By Pierce Randall

August 20, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Well, it’s not even the cost so much as it’s bad diplomacy.

NATO has been run as an anti-Russia club for the past decade and a half. If you wonder why hawks like Putin get elected (then persist past their official terms in office), and why Russia attacks Georgia over something like South Ossetia, there’s your answer.

In theory, a National Missile Defense system wouldn’t be such a terrible idea. For those not briefed on Cold War nuclear detterence, Russia looks at a shield as a barrier against their Mutually-Assured Destruction posture towards the United States. A real, effective NMD would — to the degree it’s effective, at least — give America first-strike capability against Russia. Conservatives and American foreign policy hawks still see Russia in myopic, we’ve-got-to-beat-them terms — maybe they’re groping for the shadowy hem of Reagan’s coattails — and have exported their views to former Eastern Block states skeptical of long-term relations with Russia. However, I maintain, at least since we haven’t tried it — and going ahead with NMD has brought us to overt Russian military agression — forging common security and economic interests with Russia would be a cheaper and more effective strategy than some puny missile defense system.

By Poste Haste

August 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Buttgeyser = Glenn = Corporal

moron

By Poste Haste

August 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

McCain 08: A vote for McLame is a vote for 4 more years of McBush, which is like a 100 yrs in Dogs-of-War years, man.

Obama 08: America found. America sound.

By Lee

August 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Whether or not they work, the anti-ballistic missile shield in Poland adds uncertaincy to the Iranian and other terrorists who want to intimidate Europe. If they don’t know if their missiles can survive to hit Paris or Berlin, then they have less incentive to fire them off and risk them being shot down.

Besides, by having this missile defense in the news so prominently, the Iranians are now painfully aware that they don’t have a similar shield of missles to protect them from our response to their attack- again, this makes the game of thermonuclear war more uncertain.

Uncertaincy is as good for deterrence as anything. If you don’t know that your knock-out shot will be a wet firecracker, then you won’t risk it first.

Besides, there are other worries besides missiles aimed at Europe. A missile fired straight up high over Iran, that pushes an electro-magnetic pulse (emp), will scramble electronics in computers, cell phones, cars, airplanes, etc., far away in the US. Being able to shoot that missile down before it gett so high as to affect us may mean that it will never be fired.

So, the missiles are cheap at any price. They will be even cheaper if they are never needed at all because they cause uncertaincy in the Iranians.

By RenaP

August 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

better yet The Corporal why didn’t we protect the United States on September 11?

By rd

August 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Actually, I’m conservative and I agree with Jay. America can no longer to carry on wars all over the world, or to protect Japan or Taiwan or Europe from the ages-old enemies of Russia, China, and the Middle East. We don’t have the money. We can’t afford the future obligations of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, much less protect the entire world against attacks that may never exist.

The U.S. spends as much on defense as the next 20 countries in the world combined, yet Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Europe are all flush with money. If they perceive a threat, let them spend for their own defense.

By Duke

August 20, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

Bookman often supports the internationalist agenda. He likes the idea of a North American Union, for example. Well, then, he should like the Bush Administration’s vison of America as the keeper of world peace everywhere. It is amusing the watch liberals- okay, maybe Bookman is not reliably liberal- but it is amusing to watch liberals castigate President Bush for advancing their internationalist agenda more rapidly than any Democratic President would dare to do.

I think we should concentrate on the Western Hemisphere- invade Venezuela and imprison Chavez, for example. But it is a difficult question. Maybe a large country like us does have some responsibility to exercise leadership all over the world.

By "The Corporal"

August 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

To RenaP:

Why didn’t we protect the United States on 9/11 ?

Because the bureaucracy won the day :

1) We didn’t (and still can’t) control who comes into the country. 2) We didn’t listen to “worker bees” (i.e., the FBI agent who said exactly what was going to happen). 3) If someone had gone to Congress and asked for a massive Federal Air Marshal program a year before it happened they would have been laughed out of the place as it was too expensive. 4) We didn’t (and still don’t) hunt down and effectively “dispose” of terrorists who would harm us “before” they do. 5) We treated (and still do) the war on terror as a law enforcement function instead of “war”. 6) We were (and still are) hamstrung by our judicial system.

I could go on and on but I grow weary of the same old adage ……. “the more things change the more they stay the same.”

By Hillbillly Deluxe

August 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Link to this

I don’t think we have to export our views about Russia to Eastern Europe. I think given their history they understand Russia far better than we do.

By Political Foreskin

August 21, 2008 5:36 AM | Link to this

WRONG, corporal. Nobody can stop a few men stepping on a plane virtually unarmed.

Nobody can stop an administration holding a nation hostage with a war either. A few men stepped on our constitution virtually unarmed.

History will autopsy the Bush Administration BigStick Policy and find a monkey suit.

War should be a last resort. If you start a war, you’ve lost. Nobody ever won a war, so to have one just to have one is supreme folly.

Historians will autopsy the Bush Administration BigStick Policy and find a rubber monkey suit

By Stone

August 21, 2008 5:59 AM | Link to this

Nobody ever won a war? World War II was won, guinness. The American civil war was won. I could go on.

By JW

August 21, 2008 6:28 AM | Link to this

It never ceases to amaze me at how the most macho, militaristic, warmongering people living in our society are those that never have to make any sacrifices at all and seldom, if ever, even get off their porches when the shooting starts. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice others so long as it does not interfere with their own perfect little world. In effect, they become the “the armchair quarterback” of Monday morning fame, with most having never even been to a military installation, let alone been a member of the armed forces and what that life entails. Their attitude of “Let’s just go to war and kick a*” is perfectly fine so long as it is not them being sent.
I think one of your readers certainly had it right when he said that what this all boils down to is actually the redistribution of wealth to large corporations and the wealthiest of individuals.

By AL

August 21, 2008 7:00 AM | Link to this

2 QUESTIONS???? (MAYBE OFF SUBJECT) FOR BYTE ME OR ANYBODY ELSE

1)Why don’t the 20 million illegal Mexicans in this country go home and try to fix their own corrupt and screwed up country?

2)If they are so hard working like we are told over and over and over (which I agree) why is Mexico in such a mess?

The United States is not the answer to Mexico’s problems. The only answer is their own people.It seems every person capable of leaving does. Who the heck is left?

By All Hogwash

August 21, 2008 7:19 AM | Link to this

gttm* I’d love to know for whom you work. Is it an apparently hated and despised “private company”? Private companies are the backbone of the capitalist economic system. **Oh wait! Maybe your a Democrat (a.k.a) a neo-communist or neo-socialist? What we really need, then, is a good 5-year plan and to nationalize all private companies (along with our medical system) so that Big Brother can decide how to ration everything, with most of it going to Big Brother, of course.

By Taxpayer

August 21, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

Nationalize everything and go to work for big brother. We can all be equals. If not, we can at least all be leeches together, living off one another.

By Slick

August 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

I agree with Jay that the Europeans should pay the costs of their defense - not the US. Especially since we are doing it with borrowed money. But I heard another one that makes me wonder about the spending of our tax dollars…

Why should we pay $1,000,000,000 (more borrowed money) for the reconstruction of Georgia? Did we “break it”? Why do we have to pay to repair it?

By ufjc fijznsq

April 1, 2009 4:47 AM | Link to this

jdwp tqoc nbtey twdlpqyar ugokfyne wberxmaj eqcdatbl

By ufjc fijznsq

April 1, 2009 4:48 AM | Link to this

jdwp tqoc nbtey twdlpqyar ugokfyne wberxmaj eqcdatbl