• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama's Other Audacious Stealth Appointment

    Health care rationing czar Dr. Donald Berwick may be stealing all the headlines, but he is not the only bureaucrat President Barack Obama is forcing on the American people without proper Senate review. Unlike Dr. Berwick, at least the Senate got the opportunity to question President Obama’s new associate director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology, Phillip Coyle.

    Coyle’s new title may have the word “science” in it, but he is in fact the “high priest” of missile defense denialism. At National Review Online, Foreign Policy Initiative executive director Jamie Fly wrote back in March: “Coyle made a name for himself by questioning whether missile defense is technically possible, contradicting a proven track record of repeated successes by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency.”

    A Senate debate over Coyle’s anti-missile defense views would completely undercut the Obama administration’s push to ratify the New START with Russia.  Back in May when we exposed the fact that the White House fact sheet on New START significantly differed from the State Department fact sheet:

    Notice the change? The Obama administration has backtracked from “does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs” to “does not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible.” So are only the “most effective missile defenses” allowed by New START? As determined by whom? By the Russians? By Obama’s nominee to be Associate Director for the National Security and International Affairs, Office of Science and Technology Policy Philip Coyle? Coyle, by the way, has made a name for himself by questioning whether missile defense is technically possible, despite a proven track record of repeated successes by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency. If a new U.S. President who actually believes in missile defense is elected, would that Commander in Chief be constrained by what President Obama and anti-missile defense advocates like Coyle thought qualified as “effective missile defense”?

    This is why the White House snuck Coyle through on a recess appointment. They do not want the fact that if the Senate did ratify New START, it would bind future Presidents to “high priest” Coyle’s interpretation of what was and wasn’t “effective missile defense.”

    This stealth appointment is about nothing less than significantly weakening our nation’s future missile defense capabilities.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Obama's Other Audacious Stealth Appointment

    1. Mark - Columbia, MD says:

      Why is Obama not being transparent like he said he'd be on national TV? Liar 100%

    2. Brad, Chicago says:

      For all the fuss made about Republicans being "the party of No" who decided to oppose the President unilaterally, he's been saying "No" to them an awful lot. We had closed door meetings during the health care debate, followed by the reconcilliation passage, and now these appointments. It's sad to me how far this President has fallen from his original claims of intentions to work with both parties to fix Washington. He hasn't done anything about Washington, unless you count increased partisan attitudes and has decided that the rest of the country has all the problems.

    3. Pingback: Obama's Other Audacious Stealth Appointment | The Foundry … : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies

    4. Pingback: Obama's Other Audacious Stealth Appointment | The Foundry … « President Barack Obama

    5. Waltr, Alabama says:

      I don't know why anyone is surprised. This is the Change he promised. He also promised to fundamentally change the country. Obama is only living up to his promises.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×