That's the quote I read.

'Looking to quickly approve new defense spending after last week's twin terror attacks, Senate Democrats are setting aside their effort to block money for any missile defense activity that would violate a 1972 arms control treaty.'

But it's true that there's also this quote:

'Two committee Democrats said after a closed-door briefing Friday on the attacks that they predicted the final bill would place a greater emphasis on short- and theater-range missile defenses.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said an emphasis on short- and medium-range missile defense systems could come at the expense of national missile defense that would guard against intercontinental ballistic missiles.'

Still, the way I look at it - which is unlikely to be the way strong NMD proponents look at it - is you gotta start somewhere. If NMD is to be a 'layered defense,' as I've heard it described more than once, then 'short- and medium-range missile defense systems' certainly qualify as a start. I would call that a good first step toward NMD.

The fact the Democrats in the Senate dropped their steadfast adherance to the 1972 ABM Treaty is certainly a move forward for NMD. The fact that short- and medium-range missile defense systems are being endorsed by Democrats in the Senate seems to me to be yet another good sign for the eventual deployment of an NMD.

Even if the full-blown NMD, as envisioned by Rumsfeld, is never realized, it appears that at least parts of it are now going to be built.

Before the horrible attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the prospects for NMD weren't nearly as bright.