Missile nonsense from the New York Times

In an editorial right out of the Cold War, the editors of the New York Times assume their readers share so many of their own lazy assumptions it makes you wonder why they bothered to write anything at all. 

"President Obama made a sound strategic decision, scrapping former President George W. Bush’s technologically dubious plan to build a long-range missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, the Pentagon will deploy a less-ambitious — but more feasible — system of interceptors and sensors, first on ships and later on land."

Here are some quotes from the editorial (my response in italics):

1. ".... managing the diplomacy — particularly the disappointment of the Central Europeans — and the politics in this country will require a very deft hand."    Who cares what these countries think?   Are they paying for the program?  How about asking what US taxpayers want?   And how does missile defense actually make Americans any safer?
2. "Neither Poland nor the Czech Republic was ever worried about Iran or particularly committed to the need for missile defense. What they fear is Russia."  From the perspective of the Central Europeans, the program is about stopping Russia
3. "The complaints in Washington are already at least as fierce — and a lot more disingenuous. Missile defense has long been an article of faith and politics, more than reason, for many Republicans."     The 'complaints' of people on the left and right who don't believe in missile defense expenditures don't matter to the New York Times.
4. "Mr. Obama will meet in New York next week with President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia. He must make clear that this decision is not a payoff for Moscow’s bullying — and that an improved relationship will depend on Russia’s willingness to treat its neighbors and its people better."  Vague challenges will produce nothing but laughter.   Why don't you explain EXACTLY what you want from Russia?
   
5. "We never believed Moscow’s claims that the Bush system posed a threat to its thousands of highly sophisticated missiles. The Russians repeated it so often that they may have begun to persuade themselves."  Maybe Russia just doesn't want armed enemies on its borders. 
6. "The president’s critics are right on one point: The Russians will be watching him closely for any signs of weakness. Mr. Obama must be prepared to press Mr. Medvedev hard on all of these issues." Translation:  Obama already "looks weak."