WASHINGTON — After 24 years and more than $100 billion spent to develop a U.S. missile defense, an American-operated system proposed for Europe would cost billions more to deploy and still may fail, a series of independent reports concludes.USA Today (aka: Obama's water carrier) provides what can only be considered a disingenuous article. Let's take a closer look at the "independent reports" to which the publication refers.
President Obama recently suggested he would consider scrapping the Europe system in exchange for Russia's help in thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. During last year's campaign, Obama said he would support missile defense if it proved workable.
First up... "The Union of Concerned Scientists"
Even the name oozes nuanced liberalism. A quick visit to their web site settles the score. They are anti-nuclear power, anti-nuclear weapons, pro-global warming, pro-green hippies masquerading as scientists.
Passage of a Strong Climate Bill Must be a Top Priority for CongressI hardly find them a credible source of anything.
To prevent the worst effects of global warming, Congress must act now to pass comprehensive climate policy that will curb global warming, break our dependence on oil, and put Americans back to work.
The only other report that I could find referenced in this article is a January report of the Congressional Research Service. The funny thing is that the CRS is a service employed internally by congressmen and women to support their position. The product is confidential to the co-signer. Therefore, this report, which is anti-missile shield could very well have been contracted by liberal democrat senators or representatives who are against the project. It would be a one sided report reflective of the inquiry by the assignee. Garbage in...garbage out. It is far from objective...and USA Today didn't have the common decency to inform us who initiated the study. Therefore, it is far from a credible report.
The only other real reference in the article that is anti-missile shield (besides USA Today)...is Philip Coyle, ...who has made a career of stating the negative on the project ever since he lost his #2 position at the Defense Department when the Clintons vacated the White House. Of course, his conjecture isn't even a report, but let's not let that get in the way of an agenda.
The article is lacking in credibility, and USA Today needs a bigger bucket.