Up to Speed Again

Good News…from the WaPo:

The U.S. military shot down a target missile using its long-range missile defense system yesterday, the first time such a test has intercepted a mock enemy warhead since 2002, officials said.

An interceptor missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and collided with its target more than 100 miles above Earth, according to the Missile Defense Agency. The target, launched from Alaska, was the first to have a trajectory similar to the path a missile fired from North Korea might follow in an attack on West Coast cities.

Pentagon officials hailed the test as a major step forward for the nation's "shield" against incoming ballistic missiles, saying it vindicates their confidence in the military's ability to thwart an overseas launch of a missile carrying weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, the WaPo includes the usual find-the-gray-inside-the-silver-lining type of comments and quotes, specifically regarding the limited nature of the test, more testing is required, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the bottom line is our missile defense systems are progressing nicely. Of course more testing is required. Intercepting “a bullet with a bullet” is a hugely complex technical problem, as are the systems designed to solve said problem. I, for one, feel pretty good about the progress we’ve made. So does Captain Ed. But… The Lefties? Not so much. Not surprising.

Speaking of Captain Ed… This is pretty funny. Now, the Right gets caught out just as often as the Left, but ya gotta admit this is good:

How does the DCCC feel about having workers making less than minimum wage soliciting contributions to help it force the evil Republicans to raise the minimum wage? Burton said he'd look into this, then failed to call back.

“I’ll get back to you on that…” Famous last words, and all that.

David Limbaugh, writing at Townhall.com (“Plain lies, war lies, and partisanship”):

Democrats are outraged over President Bush's new series of national security speeches. There he goes again, politicizing the war.

The Democratic leadership obviously believes the president should muzzle himself so close to the November elections because what is important for national security might also help Republicans, and that must be avoided at all costs.

[…]

In fact, Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating, they might consider that it is the commander in chief's duty to rally popular support for the troops and their mission. Of course, the president's task wouldn't be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn't been undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady stream of disinformation, focusing on the false charge that he lied us into war.

This is in the same vein as David Brooks’ comment on The News Hour last evening, when responding to a Mark Shields comment about how Rumsfeld was “Democrat-bashing.” (my term, not Shields’, and the emphasis below is mine, too)

DAVID BROOKS: It's a dangerous word to use. And the way -- I haven't defended Rumsfeld in about five years. But the way he...

JIM LEHRER: We'll check the record. Do you want to...

MARK SHIELDS: It's OK.

DAVID BROOKS: The way he phrased it in that speech, I thought he asked a series of legitimate questions. Do you think you can appease forces, extremists of this sort? He didn't accuse anybody; he didn't mention any Democrats. He mentioned, I think, one Republican.

And so that's a legitimate point, because a lot of people do say, if we only talk to Hezbollah, then we can get -- or Hamas, we can get them to change their tune. That, I think, is untrue. And I think he was making a valid point.

Second, he said: Does anybody think they could negotiate a separate peace with these forces? And let's face it. A lot of countries, notably Saudi Arabia, have tried to negotiate separate peaces. So the broad historical analogy that he's trying to draw, I think, are things worth talking about.

And to be honest, Democrats, with a lot of justification, have been slamming Donald Rumsfeld in the most vicious terms for four years. He's allowed to hit back.

And Rummy himself followed up his speech with letters to the Honorable Minority Leaders in the House and Senate (via Instapundit):

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader of the House
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Pelosi,

I was concerned about comments attributed to you in the media about the remarks I recently made to the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Thought and careful preparation went into what I said. It is absolutely essential for us to look at lessons of history in this critical moment in the war on terror. I was honored by the reception my statements received from our veterans.

I am sending you the full text of my remarks because I assume your comments to the press were made in reaction to inaccurate media reports, such as the coverage by the Associated Press.

I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive.

Sincerely,

Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense

cc: The Honorable Dennis Hastert

I’ve read Pelosi is standing by her remarks, I’m unaware of Reid’s reaction. But Rummy’s point is valid: “…our national debate on this should be constructive.” Fat frickin’ chance. It’s election season. Fat frickin’ chance.

Today’s Pic: Left to Right: SN1, Grandson Sean, SN3…on my favorite football team’s campus. College ball begins in earnest today, and I’m oh-so-glad. For one, college football is one of two sports I follow closely. And for two: hockey isn’t far behind!!