Republicans’ unpatriotic resistance to New START

There is simply no modern precedent for the behavior of Republicans in the U.S. Senate. They are not only hyper-partisan, but they are also petty, petulant and unpatriotic, willing to jeopardize national security if they think they can hurt President Obama. Witness their growing resistance to a nuclear pact with Russia, the New START treaty.
The pact represents minimilist, mainstream downsizing of the nuclear weapons arsenals of the United States and Russia, a continuation of policies first envisioned by none other than Ronald Reagan. New START has been endorsed by every living secretary of state. That includes, obviously, Condoleezza Rice. George H.W. Bush has endorsed it.
But Republicans continue to come up with excuses, including an insistence that Obama is trying to “jam” the treaty through a lame duck session without giving them enough time to consider it. The treaty was signed by the U.S. and Russia in April; they’ve had months to read it.
Some Republicans, such as Jon Kyl of Arizona, claim the Obama administration hasn’t set aside enough money to modernize our remaining nuclear weapons. That, too, is nonsense, according to Linton Brooks, who ran the National Nuclear Security Administration under George W. Bush. Brooks said (via ThinkProgress)

you’ll hear concerns by some that the treaty may or may not be a good idea but you can’t possibly accept it because the U.S. nuclear weapons program is in disarray. And I think the administration’s answer to that is the fiscal 2011 budget with a very substantial increase for my former home, the National Nuclear Security Administration. And I will say flatly, I ran that place for five years and I’d have killed for that budget and that much high-level attention in the administration and I just – nobody in government ever said “my program has too much money” and I doubt that my successor is busy saying that. But he is very happy with his program and I think it does put us on a very firm, firm basis… I don’t think there’s any question this is in our interest and should be ratified.

So, what’s really going on with GOP opposition? They don’t want to give President Obama another victory (even if it also means a victory for the United States). There have been a few too many end-of-year stories written that depict Obama rising from the ashes, with the end of DADT and a stimulus package as a result of the tax deal.

As Mitch McConnell has said, his number one priority is making sure Obama doesn’t have a second term. He doesn’t care how much damage he does to the national interest in pursuing that goal.

435 comments Add your comment


December 21st, 2010
10:26 am

If this is what passes for intelligent journalism at the AJC, it is no wonder that most people consider the paper to be only slightly more respectable than a roll of toilet paper and why sales continue to spiral downward. First of all, Russia is no longer an enemy. Maybe during the 80’s an arms treaty with the Soviet Union would be significant, but what is the concern with passing this treaty immediately without fully vetting it when Russia is not an immediate nor a long term threat. Secondly, please explain how examining the treaty in greater detail is “petty, petulant and unpatriotic.” It seems that Obama, you and the Democrats in congress are the petty, petulant and unpatriotic ones trying to force a treaty that undermines our national security (not threaten it) down our countries throat. What is the harm in allowing congress to hold hearings as well as make a few amendments on the more specious aspects of the treaty that limit our ability to provide a defense against a missile attackes from more rogue countries like North Korea or Iran. Accusing your opponents on this issue as being petty, petulant and unpatriotic serves no purpose but to quash debate, which has been limited. If the Democrats wanted to pass this treaty sooner, why did they wait until the lame duck session to bring it up? It is not as if the Pubs in Congress have controlled the agenda. Add in the fact that Dems have held super majorities in both houses and could have have passed this at any time, it seems that your anger is not only misplaced, but it starts to stink of either intellectual dishonesty or gross incompetance, of which either is equally likely.


December 21st, 2010
10:28 am

Hey, Cynthia- remember that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”! (Hillary Clinton, 2006)


December 21st, 2010
10:31 am

And Harry Redi was being patriotic when he said “the war is lost”?. You libs are vile at best.


December 21st, 2010
10:34 am

I find Cynthia very hypocritical. She allows her and her liberal friends to castigate President Bush, to endanger America at the expense of political one upmanship when Bush was in office, but when REAL concerns about a Treaty that simply needs more looking into is put forward…Republicans are “unpatriotic” and “hyper partisan”. You can make money forecasting what liberals will complain about. Simply think of what THEY are doing wrong..and liberals will start complaining that Republicans are doing the same thing. Liberals are so childish and stupid.


December 21st, 2010
10:42 am

Ms. Tucker takes the low road, her own description, by declaring Republicans unpatriotic … Obama’s neophyte Salt treaty negotiations did not include sufficient requirements for verification!! Reagan said “Trust but verify.” Obama says “Trust.” That’s unpatriotic?

“McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, have themselves followed the Rovian low road by questioning Obama’s patriotism.”–Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Oct. 26, 2008
“There is simply no modern precedent for the behavior of Republicans in the U.S. Senate. They are not only hyper-partisan, but they are also petty, petulant and unpatriotic.”–Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dec. 20, 2010


December 21st, 2010
10:43 am

I thought dissent was patriotic when it was done by the donkeys. I am so confused.


December 21st, 2010
10:47 am

According to Sal Alinksky, the liberal / progressive mentor, the ends justify any means. And anything Mitch McConnell does to derail a second Obama term pales in comparison to the the devastation and destruction Obama has already done to this country and assuredly justifies McConnell’s actions!!! Don’t you just love it when you can dish the liberal progressive message back to the intellectually challenged like Ms. Tucker???

Edward brownlee

December 21st, 2010
11:12 am

We have a treaty with Russia limiting our arsenal…so what happens when China has more? Do we readily give up S Korea ( a huge success story. a self-made success, not a UN success nor an American success) and Japan (ditto)? Do we readily give up a successfully evolving missile defense because Russia’s already faltering economy can’t afford it? As China’s GDP approaches American levels they still have four times are population to spread it amongst. You can be sure that the impoverished Chinese will want their government to take action to lift them up at our expense. How long before Indonesia sells it’s coal, for its own protection, exclusively to China? Will some Pres lift the ban on coal mining imoposed by Obama and Clinton?
What you call RNC unpatriotic action anyone who can think ahead will say is patriotic.
You’re a DNC hack and you couldn’t care less about America as long as empty suit Obama is succeeded by another empty suit Dem.

are you serious

December 21st, 2010
11:28 am

Cynthia, let’s set aside how this treaty weakens our military strength as a country. What the real issue here is accountability. Sure, we can agree to reduce our nuclear weapons, as can Russia, but in reality there’s no way of us knowing if Russia is actually doing that. There’s no check system in place.

This is like having an honest person make a handshake deal with a criminal. We’ll do what we’re supposed to on our end, but Russia won’t on their end. Trust me on this.

This is all for political purposes anyway. Obama doesn’t really care if Russia reduces its arsenal, he just wants the glory and political clout to say that he made this deal. Cynthia, if you weren’t so blinded by your Obama worship, you would realize that.


December 21st, 2010
11:53 am

It cuts the number of missle defense missles we can have. How or why would this help the US? And why would cutting our defenses of an attack be patriotic? And how about her status as a truther? Or her “unpatriotic” stance against Obama concerning the war? She is the nut bag who claimed 5000 prisoners were executed in New Orleans by the Department of Defense. This same nutter thinks we need to get rid of our nukes? She hates America and supports dictators and terrorists around the world. Why would they even print this wacko’s column.

Bob Carson

December 21st, 2010
11:55 am

Cynthia Tucker is and has long been a left wing radical. If she is for ramming this treaty through, you can be certain all provisiions should be examined carefully before a vote. Haven’t we had enough of the left’s propensity to think the rest of us are stupid and that they can and should force legislation they don’t understand upon us?


December 21st, 2010
11:57 am

Cynthia, it should bother you greatly that the russians do not agree with obama’s interpretation as to whether new or expanded defensive weapons, like missile defense. Obama just told congress the treaty does not ban defensive weapons systems yet the russians have been saying it does…the preamble seems to support the russian view. But nonetheless we have no business ratifying a treaty that the principle parties do not even agree as to its meaning….we should send our negiators back to clarify so there is an understanding before we ratify….if we do not we are begging for a. Conflict

Rod Hug

December 21st, 2010
11:59 am

It was reported last week that the Heritage Foundation was requesting that START be made public so that its provisions could be debated. Apparently the Senate was being asked to ratify the treaty without knowing what it said.

Some facts about the treaty are leaking out: According to the treaty preamble, the Russians say the treaty is non-binding if America builds missile defenses against Iranian or North Korean missile attack. In other words, America must submit to attack from any part of the world. Senator McCain tried to pass an amendment allowing the US to defend against non-Russian attack but his amendment was defeated. Apparently Putin was listening because he said no amendments could be made to the treaty. It turns out that Putin is dictating to the US Senate, to which the Constitution gives equal say on treaties with the executive branch.

Nor does the treaty address Russia’s huge advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

Also, who wrote the treaty? Is it the same group of persons whose names seem a secret that wrote the stimulus bills, the ObamaCare bill that had to be passed to find out what was in it, the Cap and Trade bill, the Omnibus bill, the Lands Bill, and so on?

Why is passing START so urgent that it must be passed 3 or 4 days before Christmas?

stands for decibels

December 21st, 2010
12:02 pm

And Harry Redi was being patriotic when he said “the war is lost”?

Harry Redi? “I am Mormon, hear me snore…”

Anyway, just popping in to mention that Start is looking like it’ll be ratified after all.

Another “L” for McCain and the Grumpy old Turds of the Senate.

Stan SSO

December 21st, 2010
12:04 pm

The National Nuclear Security Administration has no responsibility for our nuclear weapons. The author erroneously implied that.


December 21st, 2010
12:07 pm

These folks probably think you are “unpatriotic” Cynthia- I personally think you are a subversive traiior to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

Generals, Diplomats Warn of New START

More than 30 former defense or foreign policy government officials and related experts issued an open letter to the Senate Monday expressing their “professional judgment” that President Barack Obama’s proposed nuclear weapons reduction treaty with the Russians, called New START, “is not consistent with the national security interests of the United States,” and “should be rejected by the U.S. Senate,” which is considering it now.

They argue that Russia easily could cheat secretly to our detriment, that it would restrict deployment of new U.S. anti-missile defenses, that it would reduce the survivability and flexibility of our our strategic forces and could be militarily destabilizing, that it permits a continued large Russian superiority in overall nuclear weapons, and that resulting insecurity among our allies about continued extended deterrence could lead to intensified production and proliferation of nuclear weapons—all unintended, harmful consequences, the opposite of the Obama Administration’s announced goals for the agreement.

Among the many signers are: Ambassador Ed Rowny, former U.S. chief START negotiator; Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret), former director, Defense Nuclear Agency; Judge William Clark, former national security adviser to President Reagan; Honorable Paula DeSutter, former assistant secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation; Honorable Fred Ikle, former director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Ambassador Read Hammer, former deputy director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and former chief U.S. START Negotiator; Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerny, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former deputy chief of staff; Ambassador John Bolton, former undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.; Ambassador Henry Cooper, former director, Strategic Defense Initiative of the Department of Defense, and former U.S. chief negotiator, Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union; and Hon. Edwin Meese, III, fomer counselor to the president and former U.S. attorney general.

More specifically, despite Obama administration claims to the contrary, the former officials and experts say that the proposed New START treaty has the following major problems, among others:

* It would effectively limit further U.S. anti-missile defenses for the American homeland in the face of growing rogue nation/terrorist nuclear threats, saying “it would be folly to limit, let alone preclude, available options to do so” in the future.
* It “is simply not adequately verifiable,” and “the Russians could engage in militarily significant violations with little fear of detection by the US,” with years being needed before we could respond adequately.
* It “would reduce the survivability and flexibility of our (strategic) forces.”
* Its low limits on the number of nuclear launchers could end up being militarily and strategically destabilizing;
* It would solidify a large Russian superiority in nuclear weapons when considering its 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, many of which have strategic capabilities and roles, and which have been termed an “urgent” problem by the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission.
* It could force cuts in some of our vital conventional capabilities (i.e., heavy bombers) as well.
* It would “create concerns” among our allies about America’s continuing extended deterrent capability to protect them, which could lead to “intensified proliferation” of nuclear weapons.
* “It is unnecessary and ill-advised for the US to make these sorts of deep reductions in its strategic forces” so that the Russians are authorized/enabled to modernize and build up to our levels.

The statement closes by saying, “For all these reasons, we urge the members of the US Senate to resist pressure to consider the New START Treaty during the lame-duck session. The Senate should reject this accord and begin instead a long overdue and vitally needed process of modernization of the nuclear stockpile and refurbishment of the weapons complex that supports it. Only by taking such steps can we ensure that we will, in fact, have the ’safe, secure, and effective deterrent’ that even President Obama says we will need for the foreseeable future.”

Following is the text of the letter and the signers:


As you know, President Obama insists that the United States Senate advise and consent during the present lame-duck session to the bilateral U.S.-Russian strategic arms control treaty known as “New START” that he signed earlier this year in Prague. It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which its ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate.

Administration efforts to compel the Senate to vote under circumstances in which an informed and full debate are effectively precluded is inconsistent with your institution’s precedents, its constitutionally mandated quality-control responsibilities with respect to treaties and, in particular, the critical deliberation New START requires in light of that accord’s myriad defects, of which the following are especially problematic:

* It is unnecessary and ill-advised for the United States to make these sorts of deep reductions in its strategic forces in order to achieve sharp cuts in those of the Russian Federation. After all, the Kremlin’s strategic systems have not been designed for long service lives. Consequently, the number of deployed Russian strategic intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and long-range, nuclear-capable bombers will drop dramatically, with or without a new arms control agreement.

Russian sources indicate that, within eight-to-nine years, Russian Federation’s inventory of strategic launchers will have shrunk from approximately 680 launchers today (some of which already are no longer operational) to approximately 270 launchers, simply as a result of the aging of their systems and the pace of their modernization program. By contrast, the service life of existing U.S. systems extends several decades. In other words, the Russians are going to undergo a substantial contraction in the size of its strategic nuclear arsenal, whether we do or not.

There are serious downsides for the United States in moving to the sorts of low numbers of strategic launchers called for in the New START Treaty. These include:

* New START would encourage placing more warheads on the remaining launchers, i.e., “MIRVing” — which is precisely what the Russians are doing. Moving away from heavily MIRVed strategic launchers has long been considered a highly stabilizing approach to the deployment of strategic forces — and a key U.S. START goal.

* New START would reduce the survivability and flexibility of our forces — which is exactly the wrong posture to be adopting in the uncertain and dynamic post-Cold War strategic environment. The bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission concluded that “preserving the resilience and survivability of U.S. forces” is essential. The very low launcher levels required by New START are at odds with both of those necessary conditions.

* New START’s low ceilings on launchers and warheads can only create concerns about America’s extended deterrent. Allied nations have privately warned that the United States must not reduce its strategic force levels to numbers so low that they call into question the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella or encourage China to see an opportunity to achieve strategic parity with the United States. Some of those who have long looked to us for security may feel constrained to develop and field their own deterrents — a formula for intensified proliferation.

* New START’s limitations could result in the destruction of U.S. multi-purpose strategic bombers, affecting not only the robustness of our nuclear deterrent but cutting into our conventional capabilities, as well.

* Were the United States to slash its strategic nuclear forces to match those the Russians can afford, it would ironically ensure that it has far fewer nuclear weapons — not parity with the Kremlin — when the latter’s ten-to-one advantage in tactical weapons is taken into account. The Russians have consistently refused to limit their tactical nuclear arms, and will surely continue to do so in the future, especially since Moscow has little incentive to negotiate limitations on such weapons when the numbers are so asymmetrical.

This stance should not be surprising since it is this category of weaponry that makes up the bulk of Moscow’s nuclear stockpile. Russian doctrine emphasizes the war-fighting utility of such weapons and their modernization and exercising remain a priority for the Kremlin. In fact, some of those weapons with an explosive power comparable to, if not greatly in excess of, that of the Hiroshima bomb are believed to be aboard submarines and routinely targeted at the United States. Others are targeted against our allies. These were among the reasons that prompted the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission to identify the Russian tactical nuclear arsenal as an “urgent” problem.

Such capabilities constitute a real asymmetric advantage for Moscow. What is more, given that these Russian tactical nuclear weapons are of greatest concern with regard to the potential for nuclear war and proliferation, we cannot safely ignore their presence in large numbers in Russia’s arsenal. It is certainly ill-advised to make agreements reducing our nuclear deterrent that fail to take them into account.

* New START imposes de facto or de jure limitations on such important U.S. non-nuclear capabilities as prompt global strike and missile defenses. In the future, the nation is likely to need the flexibility to field both in quantity. It would be folly to limit, let alone effectively preclude, available options to do so.

* New START is simply not adequately verifiable. Lest assurances that the treaty will be “effectively” verifiable obscure that reality, the truth is that the Russians could engage in militarily significant violations with little fear of detection by the United States. And, for reasons discussed below, it could take years before we could respond appropriately.

These and other deficiencies of the New START treaty are seriously exacerbated by the context in which Senators are being asked to consent to its ratification. Specifically, the Senate’s endorsement of this accord would amount to an affirmation of the disarmament agenda for which it is explicitly said to be a building block — namely, Mr. Obama’s stated goal of “ridding the world of nuclear weapons.”

This goal has shaped the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and would, if left unchanged, condemn the United States to a posture of unilateral nuclear disarmament. (See, in this regard, the attached essay by Vice Admiral Robert Monroe, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 25, 2010.) By precluding the development and production of new nuclear weapons and the realistic testing of those currently in the stockpile and by “devaluing” the role played by these weapons and the mission of those responsible for maintaining our deterrent, the NPR sets the stage for the continued obsolescence and atrophying of our arsenal. No other nuclear power is engaged in such behavior. And, given our global security responsibilities and the growing dangers from various quarters, neither should we.

For all these reasons, we urge you to resist pressure to consider the New START Treaty during the lame-duck session. The Senate should reject this accord and begin instead a long-overdue and vitally needed process of modernization of the nuclear stockpile and refurbishment of the weapons complex that supports it. Only by taking such steps can we ensure that we will, in fact, have the “safe, secure and effective deterrent” that even President Obama says we will need for the foreseeable future.


Judge William P. Clark, former national security advisor to the president

Hon. Edwin Meese III, former counselor the president; former U.S. attorney general

Hon. Kathleen Bailey, former assistant director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Norman Bailey, former senior director of International Economic Affairs

Hon. Robert B. Barker, former assistant to the secretary of Defense (atomic energy)

Amb. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, former undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, former assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs

Brig. Gen. Jimmy L. Cash, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former vice commander, 7th Air Force

Honorable Fred S. Celec, former assistant to thesecretary of Defense for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs

Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, former director, Strategic Defense Initiative, former chief U.S. negotiator, defense and space talks with the Soviet Union

Honorable Paula DeSutter, former assistant secretary of State for verification, compliance, and implementation

Honorable Fritz W. Ermarth, former chairman and national intelligence officer, National Intelligence Council; former member of the National Security Council staff

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., former assistant secretary of Defense for international security policy (acting)

Daniel J. Gallington, former secretary of Defense representative, defense and space talks; former general counsel, United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and former special assistant to the secretary of Defense for policy

Honorable Bruce S. Gelb, former director, U.S. Information Agency, former ambassador to Belgium

Honorable William Graham, former chairman, General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, former science adviser to the president, former deputy administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ambassador Read Hammer, former U.S. chief START negotiator; former deputy director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Honorable Fred Iklé, former undersecretary of Defense for policy

Sven F. Kraemer, former arms control director, National Security Council

Dr. John Lenczowksi, former director of European and Soviet affairs, National Security Council

Admassador James “Ace” Lyons Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), former commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Tidal W. McCoy, former secretary of the Air Force (acting)

Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former deputy chief of staff

Honorable J. William Middendorf II, former secretary of the Navy, former ambassador to the European Union, the Netherlands, and the Organization of American States

Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.), former director, Defense Nuclear Agency

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, former senior staff, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States; former senior staff, Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack

Roger W. Robinson Jr., former senior director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, former executive secretary of the Cabinet-level Senior Inter-Governmental Group for International Economic Policy

Ambassador Ed Rowny, former U.S. chief START negotiator; former special adviser to President Ronald Reagan on arms control

Michael S. Swetnam, former program monitor, intelligence community staff with liaison responsibilities to INF and START Interagency Groups, and former member of the Technical Advisory Group to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.), former deputy commander, U.S. Army Pacific

Honorable Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive

Dr. William Van Cleave, former director, Department of Defense Transition Team

Honorable Troy Wade, former director, Defense Programs, U.S. Department of Energy.


December 21st, 2010
12:12 pm

Anybody who’d be foolish enough to enter into any agreement with the Russians needs some serious professional help. There isn’t any treaty you can name they haven’t broken, many before the ink even dried. Then we have the professional apologists for them making up excuses or, worse, calling skeptics “unpatriotic”. Cynthia Tucker is a disgraceful loon with not even enough brain cells to fill a thimble.

Russ in OR

December 21st, 2010
12:51 pm

Dear Cynthia,

I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.


Hillary Clinton

Richard Shue

December 21st, 2010
1:05 pm

Here we go again. The Democrats have had large majorities in both houses for 2 years but because they want to avoid unpopular issues before an election they have delayed acting on multiple issues. Now they blame the Republicans and call them unpatriotic because they will not go along with all the things the Democrats are trying to get through in this lame duck session. This treaty has been on the table since last April. I guess the Dems have been unpatriotic up until now.


December 21st, 2010
1:05 pm

This treaty does not take China and her nuclear buildup into account, nor does it entail tactical nukes, which Russia has a huge advantage. No wonder Russia is telling Obama not to change the treaty, they get a great deal which will endanger America. Patriotic is doing what is best for America, and that is not supporting this treaty.


December 21st, 2010
1:14 pm

Republicans were elected to a majority to do just what they are doing, to stop anything our one term Obama intends to do, and hopefully do the one thing Obama should have done when he was elected and that is look for ways to create jobs, just like Bush did after the dot com bust…WE NEED JOBS! THATS IT PEOPLE!


December 21st, 2010
1:16 pm

Oh boy. A supporter of Barack Obama of the God Damn America church questions the patriotism of somebody like John McCain. Unreal.

Navy Vet 66-00

December 21st, 2010
1:17 pm

So if I disagree with the treaty as currently written, I am unpatriotic? Little did I know that disagreeing with you wiped away my contributions to this country over 34 years of active duty from Vietnam to Iraq.


December 21st, 2010
1:20 pm

This country was founded on the principle of laws. You’re saying that opposing LAWBREAKERS is unpatriotic??
Screw you Tucker


December 21st, 2010
1:26 pm

Really? Unpatriotic? Thank you so much Democrats for showing me that you are just as shrill, petty, and shameless as the Bush Administration.

Quote Of The Day | Black & Right

December 21st, 2010
1:27 pm

[...] So, what’s really going on with GOP opposition? They don’t want to give President Obama another victory (even if it also means a victory for the United States). As Mitch McConnell has said, his number one priority is making sure Obama doesn’t have a second term. He doesn’t care how much damage he does to the national interest in pursuing that goal. — Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution [...]


December 21st, 2010
1:28 pm

The Republicans in the house and senate who appose the left’s commie agenda are all national heroes – Thank you!!!!!


December 21st, 2010
1:29 pm

I had no idea CT and all her supporters were experts on nuclear weapons. If Obama said it it must be true….see I am not racist!……….


December 21st, 2010
1:31 pm

Please! Obama showing weakness before all of our enemies by bowing is the weakest thing anyone has ever done in my lifetime If the Start treaty is such a BIG DEAL, why rush it, lets looking into, and not have yet another disaster, like the stimulus or obamacare…. Find out what’s in it FIRST!

Tom R

December 21st, 2010
1:31 pm

Interesting how she appends another sentence after his “quote” saying he doesn’t care about the national interest, wholly without justification. Wait until the No Labels guys catch her using “Unpatriotic”, clearly a smear term with no basis or redeeming value. Glad I live 3,000 miles from Cynthia!


December 21st, 2010
1:36 pm

Oh, yes Cynthia, the fact that Russia is expending its entire military budget just to MAINTAIN its deteriorating arsenal is the exact reason we should do anything to relieve them of that game changing burden, huh? Is this woman what passes for intelligent at liberal newspapers now??? Yes, let’s unburden Russia’s military from unnecessary cost and burden, and saddle ours with gay lawsuits. Can’t you just wait for the discrimination and hurt feelings lawsuits?? Liberals are such geniuses. Wow.

Tom R

December 21st, 2010
1:37 pm

Is CT another black who gets a pass, saying crap like this? Where’s Sharpshooter when we need his voice for constructive dialogue? Why can’t the legislative branch exercise due diligence without being called names? We know that the Democrat leadership and The One bear watching.


December 21st, 2010
1:42 pm

The Russians cannot afford to maintain their nuclear arsenal. That alone will lead to disarmament. Does the savant Tucker have any clue?


December 21st, 2010
1:51 pm

Isn’t it interesting how dissent is “patriotic” when it’s on the Liberal Agenda, yet “unpatriotic” when the “evil republicans” engage in it.

Grow up little girl.

Roger Snowden

December 21st, 2010
1:52 pm

Cynthia– You question our patriotism? I thought dissent wias the highest form of patriotism?

No longer true?

It’s not that we want to deny Obama a foreign policy victory, rather we prefer not to support a lopsided Russian advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

It’s a patriotism thing, really.