Search This Blog

Thursday, September 27, 2007

First "Star Wars" is Ridiculed, Now It's Too Good. I wish the Virginina Pilot Would Make Up Its Mind.

Remember the ridicule that Ronald Reagan endured when he proposed development of an anti-missile system? Teddy “I didn’t drown May Jo” Kennedy ridiculed it and referred to it as “Star Wars,” a put down that was quickly adopted by the Drive By Media. “Experts” were trotted out to explain that the concept was impossible. Some of these “experts” had impressive credentials from prestigious universities and research centers.

Keep that in mind.

Well, its a few decades later. What is the concern today by “experts” trotted out by the same Drive By Media? The headline in the Virginian Pilot tells us:


Physicists challenge US missile claims


Are these physicists claiming that the system we have developed don’t work? That’s what I thought as I clicked on the link from Pilotonline.com. But no, here are today’s experts:


A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded that the Bush administration used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.

They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Now the system that they said could not be built is too good!

The USSR was adamantly opposed to the US developing an anti-missile defense system back in the day. And the Virginian Pilot published all the anti-missile development stories that it could find from the wire services and from the NY Times.

Today the USSR is gone but the Russians are adamantly opposed to the installation of the system in Poland. And the Virginian Pilot is again publishing the stories that follow the Russian line.

Coincidence? We report, you decide.

As a side note, if you believe in manmade global warming, keep the lesson from the development of the anti-missile system in mind. “Experts” quoted by the drive by media are generally the “experts” that reflect the biases of the editors of the paper.

No comments: