WORDS MUST MEAN SOMETHING . . . RIGHT?

It was spring in Prague, April 5 to be precise, when our president made the following promise:



"So let me be clear: 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."

On September 17, five months later, the president reversed himself leaving our friends with their jaws in their laps.

April 5 was the same speech where Obama proclaimed, "Words must mean something." Perhaps it depends on what your definition of "is" is. Or perhaps it is merely a reiteration of John Kerry's famous, "I was for the war before I was against it." Maybe you have to own a copy of a Progressive Dictionary of American Speech to accurately interpret Obama's use of English, "Words must mean something." Mr. President, the promise you made our allies meant something. At least they thought so.

Granted, situations arise and circumstances change which cause well-minded and responsible leaders to change their decisions. But this was a promise rendered only months ago, and for our allies in Poland and the Czeck Republic, it meant security from direct threats from Iran or others who would threaten Eastern Europe's borders. It was a deterrent.

Perhaps it turned out to not be "cost-effective," but so far, cost effectiveness has not been high on the agenda for this administration. In fact, the president says the missile defense program was not cost-effective, and as we know, "words must mean something," so he must be telling the truth.

I guess the questions we and our allies should be asking are:

• What do your words mean, Mr. President? 
• Can you be trusted?
• Where is your political reason?