Think "Missile Defense" Actually Means "Missile Defense"?

Then think again.

The sharpest exchange at this week’s Senate hearing on President Obama’s new arms control treaty with Russia came when Senator Jim DeMint went on the attack.

Mr. DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, assailed Mr. Obama for effectively agreeing to limit any new missile defense system so it could not stop Russian missiles.

“Obviously, we’re agreeing to keep our missile defense to the point where it does not render their weapons useless,” he said, expressing exasperation.

Well, OK. We'd expect that from the Obama Administration.

But wait--------

...if that is his concern with the treaty, then his argument is as much with former President George W. Bush as with Mr. Obama. After all, the missile defense program developed by Mr. Bush was never meant to render Russian weapons useless. It was supposed to be a limited system to defend against nuclear missile attack by states like Iran. Although Mr. Obama reformulated the configuration of the system last year, he kept Mr. Bush’s goal.

GWB, drinking deeply of the Texas air, looked longingly into the eyes of Putin over shared barbequed pulled pork and saw no missiles.

Or something like that.

While it's not likely that the Russkis will ever toss several hundred of their nukes this way, there's always the possibility that someone ELSE will find the keys for their ignitions.

Of course, at the rate Obama's going, the Russkis will be able to purchase the entire USA at the foreclosure sale for about 20 cents on the dollar. So why spend all that money pretending that we have a "missile defense"?

HT: AmSpec