White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield

President Obama announced on Thursday that his administration will scrap former President George W. Bush’s planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting shorter-range Iranian missiles. Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala - via Tom Friedman, Publish2 (U.S.), Google News (U.S.), New York Times (Most Emailed)
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: via New York Times - Sep 17, 2009 - 2:28 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Sep 17, 2009 - 7:37 AM PDT

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
3.9
by Jim Lang - Sep. 17, 2009

This is a fairly straightforward report on the military and Obama's adminitrations decison to revamp Bush's missile defense system in eastern Europe. In addition to reporting the facts, it reports both Republican and Russian reactions. It refers to Czech and Polish unease but it would have been better to provide some of their specific comments.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Lrwsd_thumb
4.7
by Lynn R. Willis - Sep. 18, 2009

This well-written, informative piece describes in some detail the President's reconfigured program for missile defense in eastern Europe, addressing in particular the who, what, where, when and why of the topic. In other words, good journalism. Would that Mr. Boehner and his ilk, who predictably had either nothing good to say, or at best faint praise for this decision, would have read this piece before casting their stones.

This is welcome news, signaling as it does Mr. Obama's intention to change the worldwide image of the US through diplomacy instead of belligerency, ... More »

See Full Review » (20 answers)
Jack_dinkmeyer_thumb
3.9
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Sep. 17, 2009

An objective news report about Obama radically changing the missile defense system; originally Reagan’s 32-carat, gift wrapped billion-dollar giveaway to defense contractors. Actually a fiasco real experts gave little chance of success. The article cites the reactions of Poland and the Czech Republic. And given the reactions of the special-interest owned Republicans, of the defense industry as well.

A new missile defense against Iran? Given the billions it will cost, does that mean we must keep Iran a permanent enemy?

See Full Review » (20 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
2.9
by Dwight Rousu - Sep. 17, 2009

The story lacks technical evaluation of the missile systems and any reference to costs. It also does not present the widely held view that the Bush initiative was intended to provoke Russia.

I have worked on missile defense, and my opinion is that the Bush ICBM missile interceptor system is a giant boondoggle that would never work ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Dscf1547_thumb
4.1
by Manfred Ostrowski - Sep. 18, 2009

This is a rather short account which leaves a lot of things open. First, no reaction from Poland or the Czech Republic is mentioned, one wonders whether these states have been consulted at all concerning NATO's new strategies. Second, the whole issue now looks like some preparation for a threatening military conflict with Iran, which should make many feel uncomfortable.

I would not expect Russia to join some Western approach towards Iran. As Roger Cohen writes (IHT September 17, p. 7): "Iran is in effect a Russian ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
3.8
by Kaizar Campwala - Sep. 17, 2009

It amounts to one of the biggest national security reversals by the new administration, one that will upset Czech and Polish allies and possibly please Russia, which ... More »

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.8
by John Strobel - Sep. 19, 2009

America can either be feared or respected. Fear has not and will not work, Obama leading us toward respect is simply smart.

See Full Review » (19 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.9

Good
from 7 reviews (55% confidence)
Quality
3.8
Facts
4.1
Fairness
4.1
Information
5.0
Insight
4.3
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.2
Accuracy
4.7
Balance
4.7
Context
3.8
Depth
3.2
Enterprise
3.3
Expertise
4.0
Originality
4.3
Relevance
4.8
Transparency
3.3
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.3
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!