Covering President Barack Obama’s decision to betray promises to Poland and the Czech Republic to build ground based missile defense installations on their countries, the Associated Press‘ Anne Gearan and Desmond Butler report in their September 17th lead paragraph:

President Barack Obama on Thursday shelved a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile defense shield that has been a major irritant in relations with Russia. He said a redesigned defensive system would be cheaper and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles.

The rest of the Gearan Butler story is mostly fair but they never note existing independent evidence that directly contradict the President’s assertion made above. As Heritage fellow Sally McNamara points out, the president’s missile defense alternative is both more expensive and less effective:

Alternatives to the third site include the deployment of sea-based or mobile theater-based missile defense systems. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that these alternatives do not provide a level of defense comparable to that of the third site.

The CBO states: “None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States.” The report also found that the estimated $9-14 billion 20-year cost of the third site was half of the estimated costs of a ship-based alternative.