For starters, you have to enjoy all of the unnecessary capitalization. It isn’t merely missile defense, but Missile Defense that Obama has scrapped. All of the usual tropes are here: surrender, betrayal, appeasement. It doesn’t seem to bother these people that all of this is garbage. Former Polish President Kwasniewski specifically rejected describing this decision as a “betrayal,” and it is laughable that anyone would make such a charge. How can cancelling a system that hasn’t even been built and which at least half of Poland doesn’t want count as a betrayal of Poland? If this move were an attempt at “appeasing” Russia, it might start to rehabilitate the reputation of appeasement. It would mean that foregoing unnecessary provocations can repair frayed international relations, and it implies that critics of the decision would prefer a world in which relations with Russia continue to deteriorate and European security is steadily undermined. Iran’s nuclear capability is neither here nor there. Without a long-range missile program to deliver the nukes that Iran is nowhere near close to having, Iran’s nuclear capability might be real and still pose no threat to European security. The signatories of this statement haven’t a shred of credibility on these issues. Unfortunately, instead of being greeted with embarrassment and disdain by conservatives, this statement represents the common view of much of the American right.

Here's what the former Polish President has to say:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,15…

SPIEGEL: Even though Warsaw and Prague signed a deal with the Bush administration, US President Barack Obama has called a halt to the construction of an American missile shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Polish papers are calling it an American betrayal of Poland. Is it?

Aleksander Kwasniewski: No, and I am completely opposed to describing it as such. For myself and many others, it doesn't come as any surprise that the Americans have changed their plans. During Obama's election campaign, there had already been talk of how the security threat, the technological feasibility and the costs of the project needed to be reassessed.

We haven't had a good diplomat in office for a long long time. Bolten seams to have a clue, but those before and after him were severely lacking. I think it's because of the cold war ending, and our diplomatic pants were down around our ankles. Putin has us in spades on that.

Hey…. I've got an idea!!!!
Maybe Obama, in an effort to stop possible Russian agression, could give the Rhineland to Putin!
No, wait…..That's been done already.

“ArmsControlWonks” are pretty much evenly divided, though they do like the technical side of things. However, EVERY single European politician and diplomat who isn't under Putin's thumb knows that one HUGE bargaining chip in the fight to keep European energy from becoming completely under Putin's control has just been removed. The Eastern Europeans have no lost complete confidence in the US's ability to be a foreign policy leader. Obama has done in months what took Jimmy Carter three years to do.

For those who actually understand these things, Putin's next goal is the Baku/Ceyhan Pipeline through Georgia, which sparked last year's August Russian invasion. These matters are light-years above Rudi's foreign policy skill sets, but serious people don't rely on the NYT and the jabberwocky MSM to define what is a foreign policy mistake. And Obama who was always punching above his weight with Putin, has just moved from a flyweight down to a featherweight. This dude is making Carter's give-away of the Panama Canal to [eventually] China look like a brilliant move!

The Democrats always wonder why people think they are weak on national security. Obama once again demonstrates why.

“ArmsControlWonks” are pretty much evenly divided, though they do like the technical side of things. However, EVERY single European politician and diplomat who isn't under Putin's thumb knows that one HUGE bargaining chip in the fight to keep European energy from becoming completely under Putin's control has just been removed. The Eastern Europeans have no lost complete confidence in the US's ability to be a foreign policy leader. Obama has done in months what took Jimmy Carter three years to do.

For those who actually understand these things, Putin's next goal is the Baku/Ceyhan Pipeline through Georgia, which sparked last year's August Russian invasion. These matters are light-years above Rudi's foreign policy skill sets, but serious people don't rely on the NYT and the jabberwocky MSM to define what is a foreign policy mistake. And Obama who was always punching above his weight with Putin, has just moved from a flyweight down to a featherweight. This dude is making Carter's give-away of the Panama Canal to [eventually] China look like a brilliant move!

The Democrats always wonder why people think they are weak on national security. Obama once again demonstrates why.

But I find it odd that Obama decided to break the news about the missle shield on the 70th anniversary of the Invasion of Poland. Nice touch, Barack.

At least with the scummy politics-of-torture Bush-Cheney Code Pinkers, there was a (sinister) reason.

Normal people who slipped and flirted with this realized the error of their ways after the Iron Curtain fell. Anyone wanting this as their goal since then has no excuse and is much more pathetic if not more sinister.

The lessons taught by this decision don't just involve the Czechs and the Poles, but also the Georgians and the Ukrainians.

The separate issue is if the alternative sought is mere liberal “symbolic” fluff or actually of value; theater missiles are a serious threat, and Iran is a serious threat, and naval missile defenses against theater missiles say “Persian Gulf” and “protecting Iran's neighbors and their oil installations.”

…
Those who would say the decision was about Russia have it backwards — for exhibits A and B check the quotes in stories by WaPo’s Michael D. Shear and Ann Scott Tyson and the NYT’s Peter Baker and Nicholas Kulish.

The Bush Administration placed a midcourse interceptor site and X-band radar within the former Warsaw Pact precisely to make a political point to the Russia, not because it provided the best defense. Aegis was always a better technical option.

Once the White House was no longer motivated to be churlish toward Moscow, that allowed technical considerations at the front of the debate. The fact that this may also open up a world of possibilities with Moscow (and I stress may) is nice, but is not the reason to put theater missile defenses into Europe. The reason is to give NATO allies a defense that works against a threat that exists.
…

And yes, the Israelis are clear-eyed, but know that if they attack Iran, the price of oil will go to $200 and the whole world will blame them rather than serial UN resolution flaunter Iran. The UN hates it most of all when its flaunted resolutions are actually enforced outside its pattycake garden party echo chamber. I was in two UNGA sessions and I can assert that lunacy walks and sanity hides behind the scenes when the General Assembly, led by a defrocked priest Communist from Latin America, starts proposing whack-job ET scenarios and voting on them. Early on in my State career, I received an application from a third-world country to join the Security Council addressed to “Cyprus” Vance. Needless to say, the country didn't become one of the select 15.

Over on JustOneMinute at Tom Maguire's blog, there is a discussion of just all the zaniness this missile shield mischief contains.

And if Obama thinks that Israel is going to sit idly by and watch Iran procure nukes, he's naive at best.
And perhaps that's Iran's aim. Get Israel to attack and garner pan-arab support for a massive jihad.

Iran, and the rest of the UN will consider it a given that Obama can be rolled, easily, and that he ain't got a pecker in them pants. First he makes a commitment to Poland & the Czechs in April, then reneges, for no apparent reason and for no quid pro quo. At the same time he extends a peace feeler to Iran, they laugh in his face, and he backs down on his missile shield to protect US allies from them.

Who in fact is in charge in the White House? Is this guy a featherweight or a flyweight? Jimmy Carter, move over, we've got a new contender for championship mush from a wimp.

Iran, and the rest of the UN will consider it a given that Obama can be rolled, easily, and that he ain't got a pecker in them pants. First he makes a commitment to Poland & the Czechs in April, then reneges, for no apparent reason and for no quid pro quo. At the same time he extends a peace feeler to Iran, they laugh in his face, and he backs down on his missile shield to protect US allies from them.

Who in fact is in charge in the White House? Is this guy a featherweight or a flyweight? Jimmy Carter, move over, we've got a new contender for championship mush from a wimp.

Obama's supporters say that the system had been untested. That is a falshood. Based upon Aegis and Patriot systems, the missle shield system would have worked just as well, as it was based upon the same technology.

Next, as you stated, President Obama wishes to realign allies. To him, it is better to please (or appease) the Russians in an effort to form a tighter bond, than to follow through with a comittment made with a proven ally like the Poles. I met countless Polish troops in Iraq – and they were outstanding warriors – some of the best in theater.

But you have to understand why the President is doing this.
I stated the following on another thread:
Like Bush, Obama is a “one-world government” type, only with Bush he wished to use NATO where Obama uses UN. Within the NATO framework, we were, indeed, working against the Russians. Under the UN framework, we need Russia for key issues.
Take your pick. Both forms of world government stink – be it the militarily powerful NATO, or the diplomatically powerful UN.
Given the choice, I'd rather be on top of the heap with Star Wars and with a tested ally like the Poles, than on an equal keel without it with a “possible” ally with the Russians.

I would very much like to play poker with Obama, as he gave away something for nothing, and managed to doubly insult the Poles as it was the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland from the East. Talk about wrong-footed clumsiness and timing, Obama & Hillary couldn't have done worse.