Gramm’s wife, Wendy, the board chair of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which hosted the event, also ran afoul of historians. While discussing Friedman’s dialogue with General Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, about free-market policies, she said that former Chilean Pres. Salvador Allende was clinging to power against voters’ wishes before Pinochet’s 1973 coup. Historians told The Texas Independent that Gramm was flat-out wrong — Allende’s party had triumphed in an election just months prior to Pinochet’s take-over.

Revered by conservative free-market thinkers, Friedman is a polarizing figure due at least in part to how his economic theories were put into practice in the wake of major upheavals in South America and elsewhere.

At the luncheon Friday, Phil Gramm praised Friedman for his unwavering defense of the free market, even in the case of sweatshops — which Friedman said were a product of poverty, not capitalism.

Phil Gramm reprised a Friedman anecdote about how his own mother had worked in a sweatshop in New York City for three years after immigrating from Poland. Gramm said Friedman’s parents were part of the Jewish migration from Poland.

However, Friedman’s parents were not from Poland; they were from Austria-Hungary, according to Friedman’s autobiography on the Nobel Prize website.

Phil Gramm related how Friedman said that sweatshop workers make more money than average workers due to the lengthy hours involved, and that this was what had enabled his family to accumulate enough money to move to Chicago and pursue “the opportunity of the American Dream.”

However, Friedman’s parents met in New York City, where Friedman was born. They soon moved to Rahway, N.J., where his mother ran a dry goods store. Friedman earned an undergraduate degree from Rutgers University in New Jersey and did not move to Chicago until he was 20 years old, according to the autobiography.

Phil Gramm also praised Friedman for originating the ideas behind an all-volunteer army, flat taxes, the earned income tax credit and school choice.

“We are in a counter-revolutionary cycle in our own country,” Phil Gramm said.

This story originally appeared at The Texas Independent.

Since 2003, NATO and Russia have staged at least four simulated missile defense exercises. Both sides say they were successful.

“They showed (NATO’s and Russia’s) missile defense systems could be made interoperable,” [Dmitry] Rogozin told reporters Friday. “They showed this can enhance the level of security for everyone.”

There’s a talking point out there, reiterated by ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee, a respected defense intellectual, to our own Dave Weigel, that Obama got “nothing” in response to his decision to revamp European missile defense plans. Rogozin, by contrast, said that Russia will back away from plans to deploy its own missiles:

In Brussels, Rogozin, the Russian NATO envoy, said the shelving of the U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe means Russia will now not deploy short-range Iskander missiles near Poland. “If you have no radars and missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland, we don’t need to find some response,” he said.

Imagine that. A diplomatic move that gets a bone out of the throat of a great power is immediately met with a gesture that actively contributes to the security of NATO allies. It’s almost like Huckabee, and the gaggle of braying conservative critics who find any change to the imaginary Strategic Defense Initiative to be an affront to St. Reagan, don’t actually have any idea what they’re talking about.

Let me begin, though, by echoing the president’s statement yesterday concerning his approval of the recommendations not only of the Pentagon but of his entire national security team to deploy a stronger and more comprehensive missile defense system in Europe. This decision came after a lengthy and in-depth assessment of the threats posed, and particularly the threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and the technology we have today and what might be available in the future to confront it. We believe this is a decision that will leave America stronger and more capable of defending our troops, our interests and our allies.

Let me be clear about what this new system will do, relative to the previous program which was many years from being deployed. With the president’s decision, we will deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program. We will be able to swiftly counter the threat posed by Iran’s short and medium-range ballistic missiles. We  will deploy missile defense that is more comprehensive than the previous program, with more interceptors in more places, and with a better capacity to protect all our friends and allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven, so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money, and we will preserve the flexibility to adjust to the threat as the threat evolves.

So make no mistake: if you support missile defense — which I did, as a senator, for eight years — then this is a stronger and smarter approach than the previous program. It does what missile defense is actually supposed to do: it defends America and our allies. Now, I know we’ve heard criticism of this plan from some quarters. But much of that criticism is not yet connected to the facts. We are not, quote, shelving missile defense. We are deploying missile defense sooner than the Bush administration planned to do so. And we are deploying a more comprehensive system. We are not reducing our capacity to protect our interests and our allies from Iran. By contrast, we are increasing that capacity, and focusing it on our best understanding of Iran’s current capabilities.

And most of all, we would never — never — walk away from our allies. We have recommitted ourselves to our Article V [of the NATO Charter] obligations under NATO. We have sent that message in bilateral and multilateral settings, from the president’s and my trips, to every other encounter and venue that we have been in over the past many months. We are deploying a system that enhances the security of our NATO allies. It actually advances the cooperation with NATO, and it actually places more resources in more countries. Two of our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, were very willing to host parts of the previous planned system, and we deeply appreciate that. We will continue to cooperate closely with both nations, for instance through the rotation of a Patriot battery in Poland and close missile-defense research and development with Czech companies. As we explore land-based interceptors going forward, we have made it clear that those two countries will be at the top of the list. And let me underscore that we are bound together by our common commitment as NATO allies and also by deep historical, economic and cultural ties that will never be broken.

Finally, let me reiterate what the president said yesterday. This decision was not about Russia. It was about Iran, and the threat that its ballistic missile program poses. And because of this position, we believe we will be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat, and to do so with technology that works and a higher degree of confidence that what we pledge to do we can actually deliver.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Allies including Poland, the Czech Republic and Israel stand on the front line of an Iranian missile threat and should never doubt the United States’ commitment to their security.

Poland?

Update: Dayspring responded to me and sent out a follow-up press release on this, citing President Obama’s April 2009 speech in Prague where he set the goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.

That’s the source for this criticism.

Among their baseline judgments is precisely what former undersecretary of defense Eric Edelman cautioned — that the “threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected.” But Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities are still immature, and are proceeding slower than previously projected. Meanwhile, “U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly,” a trend expected to continue, and so the administration plans a four-phased for theater missile defense between now and 2020 based around those advances. Gates noted that those emergent technologies don’t rely on a “single, large, fixed European radar” that was supposed to be built in the Czech Republic; nor do they require the technology underlying the planned interceptor field in Poland. So out it goes.

It’s some good jujitsu: accepting the technological premises of missile defense advocates to argue that the planned Poland/Czech Republic-based system is a relic before it’s built.

Here’s full fact sheet.

President Obama has approved the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. This approach is based on an assessment of the Iranian missile threat, and a commitment to deploy technology that is proven, cost-effective, and adaptable to an evolving security environment.

Starting around 2011, this missile defense architecture will feature deployments of increasingly-capable sea- and land-based missile interceptors, primarily upgraded versions of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), and a range of sensors in Europe to defend against the growing ballistic missile threat from Iran. This phased approach develops the capability to augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats, and to offer more effective defenses against more near-term ballistic missile threats. The plan provides for the defense of U.S. deployed forces, their families, and our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.

The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to the President that he revise the previous Administration’s 2007 plan for missile defense in Europe as part of an ongoing comprehensive review of our missile defenses mandated by Congress. Two major developments led to this unanimous recommended change:

* New Threat Assessment: The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated. In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel – military and civilian –and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.

* Advances in Capabilities and Technologies: Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly. We expect this trend to continue. Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.

These changes in the threat as well as our capabilities and technologies underscore the need for an adaptable architecture. This architecture is responsive to the current threat, but could also incorporate relevant technologies quickly and cost-effectively to respond to evolving threats. Accordingly, the Department of Defense has developed a four-phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe. While further advances of technology or future changes in the threat could modify the details or timing of later phases, current plans call for the following:

* Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;

* Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;

* Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and

* Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.

Throughout all four phases, the United States also will be testing and updating a range of approaches for improving our sensors for missile defense. The new distributed interceptor and sensor architecture also does not require a single, large, fixed European radar that was to be located in the Czech Republic; this approach also uses different interceptor technology than the previous program, removing the need for a single field of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense recommended that the United States no longer plan to move forward with that architecture.

The Czech Republic and Poland, as close, strategic and steadfast Allies of the United States, will be central to our continued consultations with NATO Allies on our defense against the growing ballistic missile threat.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

1. Russia, a much more important country than either Poland or the Czech Republic, viewed it as needlessly provocative.

2. The thing was never actually built, so getting rid of the plans to build it is fairly cost-free.

3. The thing was more about Eastern European political fears of a resurgent Russia, which are better dealt with through diplomatic means.

4. Iran isn’t dreaming of raining missiles down on Prague or Gdansk.

5. Moving Patriot batteries into Poland is an adequate political substitute for Polish anxieties.

[UPDATE: 6: Oh, and there are alternative missile-defense systems like Aegis that would be used as a substitute in a couple of years; plus closer-to-Iran interceptors as well

In favor of continuation:

1. Iran might someday at some point acquire this missile capability and then decide what it wants to do is blackmail European countries into giving it all their gold coins.

2. Russia isn’t an important country and even if it were, the United States ought to cherish the memory of when it was cool to provoke it.

Eric Edelman, the second Bush-administration undersecretary of defense for policy, tells The Wall Street Journal’s Peter Spiegel that he saw intelligence reports on the pace at which Iran is making technological progress on long-range missiles. But you know who sees more intelligence reports on those missiles? Edelman’s former boss, Defense Secretary Bob Gates. If Gates, the model of a pragmatic defense secretary who often discusses the need to reset defense policy around “real” and not “hypothetical” threats, doesn’t see an actual cost to U.S. or allied security, then none exists.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

This simple arithmetic – 2+2=4 – was a rallying cry during the Polish Solidarity freedom movement in the 1980s. It meant that, even though the government would try to tell the people that 2+2=5, to be free, the people had to tell the truth, that 2+2=4. Because to deny the truth was to deny reality, and to do that was to surrender freedom to the government.

Something similar is happening with the global warming bill.

Gingrich also sneaks some strange global warming denialism into the column. He doubts that “the case is closed on man’s role in causing climate change, as the left assure us that it is.” But two short years ago Gingrich wrote a book titled “A Contract With the Earth” in which he made this point:

Liberal politicians and many academics don’t trust conservatives or industry to control or reduce carbon emissions that contribute to the warming trend most climate experts have documented.

So: Do “carbon emissions that contribute to the warming trend most climate experts have documented?” Or is the case not “closed” yet? What number did Gingrich get the last time he added 2 and 2?