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

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
8:56 am

Politics before protecting our country and before the health of those who have responded to attacks. Republicans simply do not care.

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
9:02 am

To quote Kamchak

There is simply no modern precedent for the behavior of Democrats in the U.S. Senate (and truly in Congress as a whole). They are not only hyper-partisan, but they are also petty, petulant and unpatriotic; willing to jeopardize national security if they think they can help President Obama.

There. Fixed your typos.

In all seriousness: are we really going back to the “unpatriotic” talk again? I happened under Bush, it happened during the campaign, and now again. Apparently, if you so much as disagree with the President you are unpatriotic.

Peadawg

December 20th, 2010
9:04 am

“In all seriousness: are we really going back to the “unpatriotic” talk again? ”

Ya the “word of the month” is unpatriotic. First the GOP was racist, then bigots. I can’t keep track of the words Cynthia uses to describe the GOP.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
9:04 am

can you just stick to writing about things you have a clue about, things like rampant racism in everyone that opposes Obama. It really is pathetic that so many people think they know what is going on and feel the need to quote only those that support their position. Cynthia, if you were a real writer (which all of us in Atlanta know you arent), you would include quotes from nuclear experts that oppose this treaty.

But, i am sure that I am a racist for point this out.

are there no prisons; are there no workhouses?

December 20th, 2010
9:06 am

Where are my Freedom fries??

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
9:06 am

I also wonder how many people will call out CT for using an obviously biased source like ThinkProgress? I know if a Conservative were to quote FoxNews or The Blaze, that writer would be nigh-upon-crucified for using biased information.

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
9:08 am

In all seriousness…..yes we are going back to “unpatriotic” talk again, because it most certainly applies to this situation.

It is a clear case of party before poltics and those who stand opposed
to this will suffer the consequences.

I suspect the baby Jesus, would be pleased as punch to see the United States and Russia working together to stop nuclear proliferation.

Peadawg

December 20th, 2010
9:11 am

“I suspect the baby Jesus, would be pleased as punch to see the United States and Russia working together to stop nuclear proliferation.”

How does a nuclear treaty between us and Russia help the threat of Iran and North Korea? All START is going to do is make us more susceptible to attack.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
9:11 am

Perhaps the right is upset because the words have accurately described the actions of the Republican party rather than just the empty nonsensical labels attached by the right to anyone who fails to agree.

Of course, former Secretaries of State do not know much about matters of foreign affairs. Guess we should only listen to Fox “experts”

are there no prisons; are there no workhouses?

December 20th, 2010
9:13 am

Peadawg is one dumbsumbitch

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
9:14 am

Its funny that the phrase, “trust but verify” has its roots in Russian literature (allegedly). Reagan used the phrase to simply his strategy during the cold war. Amazingly, it worked. Now, the progressive left wants everyone to believe that if we trust, everything will work out fine. what the lame stream media, like cynthia, is not reporting are the nuclear experts not only in this country but in our allies’ countries that are warning against this bill. It offers no way to verify, and the simple fact that Russia has been retooling their nuclear arsenal to take advantage of this treaty seems to not cause any angst on the peacenick, flower power progressives temporarily running this country.

Cynthia, people want to kill Americans. Russia is not our friend, they are aimed for world domination. Why not look at what they have been doing to former soviet states. look at the deals they are making with Iran, china and north korea.

hobby

December 20th, 2010
9:14 am

good grief
you forgot racist

Peadawg

December 20th, 2010
9:15 am

“Peadawg is one dumbsumbitch” – for asking a question? Sorry…didn’t asking a question made me dumb.

Rob

December 20th, 2010
9:15 am

Sorry, CT: But a treaty that at the best handicaps the U.S. and at worst allows one country a tremendous advantage over another is not in our country’s interest.
So, if that’s the case–and many experts say it is–it would actually be “unpatriotic,” to use your words, to support it.
I just still wonder why some of these countries are so afraid of the U.S. developing an intrinsically defensive missile shield. Why should that bother them?

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
9:15 am

The new Start cuts — by about a third — the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime.

Mid GA Retiree

December 20th, 2010
9:16 am

Wonder who is responsible for starting all this name-calling? Was it politicians or columnists?

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
9:17 am

sorry, a treaty is not a bill, as i mistated in my prior comment. for that, and my prior comment, i now will listen to the racist and unpatriotic comments directed at my post.

Signed,
Veteran
Son of a Veteran

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
9:17 am

“some experts” ?

Wow that’s some supporting data.

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
9:18 am

The new Start cuts — by about a third — the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime…

…That does not include North Korea and Iran. Or did I miss that part where this is a treaty between the US, Russia, North Korea, and Iran? Might as well include Pakistan, India, and Israel too, right?

Gary

December 20th, 2010
9:18 am

So we should sign a treaty that would prevent us from from developing a missle defense system when we are pretty sure Iran and North Korea are determined to strike american soil with a missle… You are right I am not a patriot. Good thing I live in a wanna be international city so when the missles do start flying we will not be hit. The irony is the cities that will be targeted have dense populations of people who oppose the defense system and blame american aggression for most of the worlds woes. DC, NY, LA, SF, BO. Nice places to visit wouldn’t want to live their.

JKL2

December 20th, 2010
9:19 am

More money, more money, obama money, more money.

It’s like manna falling from the sky. Keep those printing presses rolling. It’s free money for everyone…

are there no prisons; are there no workhouses?

December 20th, 2010
9:20 am

All START is going to do is make us more susceptible to attack.
Did not see the question mark. My bad.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
9:21 am

Grief…how many missiles do we need? And where do you think the material for the weapons will come from?

Over the next 10 years, the United States and Russia would reduce their number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550. That’s 74 percent lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30 percent lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the release notes.

In addition, the countries agreed to cut to 800 the combined limit of deployed and nondeployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. It also includes a separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

Jimmy62

December 20th, 2010
9:23 am

Not sure what patriotism has to do with this. There are reasons to be against the new START, and none of them have anything to do with being anti-American.

Cynthia, you need to stop attacking people for disagreeing with you. Lots of people are going to disagree with you on a lot of issues, that does not in and of itself make them unpatriotic. If you had even one good reason why not wanting to ratify this treaty would make anyone unpatriotic, it might be reasonable to write about it. But you don’t give a single reason. You want the treaty ratified, other people don’t, and that seems to be your sole reason to call them unpatriotic.

Announcement, everyone! Cynthia Tucker has just redefined the word patriotic as meaning “In agreement with Cynthia.”

Ponder

December 20th, 2010
9:24 am

“…willing to jeopardize national security…” Seems you (again) forget PresBO’s and the Dems failure to secure our borders but instead focus on votes, i.e., comprehensive immigration reform … ten syllables that translate to three … am-nes-ty.

Nothing Is Free

December 20th, 2010
9:25 am

This has been on the agenda for months but now it’s the Republican’s fault that it is being held up.

Give me a break.

JDW

December 20th, 2010
9:26 am

JDW Your comment is awaiting moderation.

December 20th, 2010
9:26 am
@ Gary…”So we should sign a treaty that would prevent us from from developing a missle defense system when we are pretty sure Iran and North Korea are determined to strike american soil with a missle”

START places no no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile-defense programs…next “issue”

http:// content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-start-wont-undercut-us-missile-defense/1

Peadawg

December 20th, 2010
9:27 am

Keep, in both of your posts you didn’t mention anything about Iran and North Korea. Or did I miss something?

David

December 20th, 2010
9:27 am

Well at least she didn’t call the Republican’s Racist. I mean she tried everything else in the books. As for the Republican’s be hyper-partisan, and unpatriotic. I’ll I can really say is that if the Republican’s in the Senate are hyper-partisan, and unpatriotic, I would love to see what she would call Nacey Pelosi and the Democrats in the House. That would tell me exactly where she is coming from, unless of course I am just a racist and shouldn’t be allowed to ask questions like that.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
9:27 am

“keep up the good fight” – btw, the wikileaks documents show that the Obama administration is trying to increase its nuclear arsenal capabilities with this secret deal made public by wikileaks.

yeah, keep drinking the koolaid my friend.

JDW

December 20th, 2010
9:28 am

Jimmy62

December 20th, 2010
9:23 am
“Not sure what patriotism has to do with this. There are reasons to be against the new START, and none of them have anything to do with being anti-American.”

Such as?

Remarkable

December 20th, 2010
9:28 am

I find it interesting that the Left constantly accuses the right of saying or doing something that it doesn’t do, and then does it itself. Ex:

Saying Republicans question the patriotism of Democrats during the Bush administration (when they NEVER did) and then now calling Republicans unpatriotic for not supporting the treaty.

Bob

December 20th, 2010
9:28 am

Under this treaty, will North Korea and Iran agree to total access of their programs ? Is this treaty going to be as worthless as the paper it was written on like Jimmy Carters agreement with North Korea under the Clinton admin ? It hink reoubs were bashed when they were against the Carter deal, how did that turn out ?

Joe

December 20th, 2010
9:28 am

If Obama and the partisan dems won’t allow Republican input on Start they should vote against it. It’s that simple. The American people voted for a new Congress and they deserve to let them address this issue when they come in January 5th.

Cowboy Bob

December 20th, 2010
9:28 am

jesus on the down-low

December 20th, 2010
9:29 am

A youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God”.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
9:30 am

Sure, why not. We don’t need clarification on the missile defense issue. We’ve already bowed to our enemies and ticked off enough allies. Once more ain’t gonna hurt anything. Piled up even more debt for Stimulus-The sequel. Hopefully in a couple of years when the economy collapses, we can stick our collective tails between our legs and retreat back to the CONUS. At that point, with China owning our a@# and Communists running South America, we’ll have the time to wonder where all of our jobs went. Maybe plant a little garden and rejoice over the fact that DADT has at least been ended.
Enjoy the holidays.
And before you say it. Yes, very much bitter.
Don’t get me wrong. This works to my belief that we are very overextended. At home and abroad. Unfortunately these things are self-correcting. I’m thinking we are in for a very serious self-correct.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
9:34 am

Right Pea…. let’s ditch this treaty because Iran and NK are not a part. Letting Russian nuclear material and verification is not as important. There are not any other things being done to try to bring those countries in line and losing this treaty will help control Iran and NK sooooo much better. Absolute nonsense.

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
9:34 am

Why would a treaty between the United States of America and Russia include Iran or Korea?

That would be called a treaty between the USA and Korea OR it could be called a treaty between the USA and Iran.

Now either or both of those options would be lovely, we’d like to have that as well.

But sure as the sky is blue, if the Obama administration managed to achieve that- you’d obstruct that as well.

It’s party over national security and it’s repulsive.

AtlProGuy

December 20th, 2010
9:34 am

Cynthia is just angry that the first a.a. president is not faring well in the polls, nor in the hearts of the majority of Americans. So now, Cynthia is going to trot out the “unpatriotic” card. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

dawgs

December 20th, 2010
9:34 am

CT: Looks like you’ve found your card with the little red star on it. Did you ever wonder why 85% of the comments are questioning your patriotism?? What a joke.

jconservative

December 20th, 2010
9:35 am

The problem with START II opposition in the Senate is it comes from those who have spent a career staying out of the foreign policy arena.
Had those now opposed been active in the foreign policy arena for years they would have some credibility.

Either the former Secretaries of State are correct or they are fools. If you believe fools, you probably also believe they were appointed by presidents who were fools. Do any of you believe Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 were fools?

But as I write this I have read the first 4 posts to the column. Three of the four attack the columnist but express no opinion on the treaty itself. Curious.

The treaty needs to be passed for one reason, to help insure that a strategic nuclear weapon does not fall into the hands of a terrorist and gets exploded in Savannah harbor or the Downtown Connector during lunch. The START treaties are the only way we have come up with so far to keep an accounting of the SNW now existing.

Kyl’s main opposition was the spending on the modernization of our present nuclear arsenal. Kyl now has a letter from the administration, guaranteeing, Kyl’s word, more spending on the nuclear arsenal. (This is on top of the increase put in last year.)

And the complaint by McConnell yesterday that there has not been enough time to examine the issue is laughable. Eight months. I had the whole treaty read twice before the end of July. Lugar had it virtually memorized before the end of May.

There is no reason beyond politics to vote NO on this treaty. And I have never been one to play politics with the nations security.

dawgs

December 20th, 2010
9:36 am

CT: I see you’ve found your pocket card with the little RED STAR on it !!!

Gm

December 20th, 2010
9:36 am

Lets see, Rep party, voted against the Dream ACT, most of them voted against dont ask dont tell, held 2 million Americans unemployement hostage.
Now they are against nuclear pact, if this is not the party of satan, I dont know what is.
This is why President Obama will go down as the greatest President ever, dispite all the bigots and racist people out there he still fights for the middle class and poor white conservatives.
He has set the bar, two wars and he is still passing bills to help Americans.

Beretverde

December 20th, 2010
9:37 am

Wow—now it’s UNPATRIOTIC to go against something that YOU wish? Well I for one, fought in a war I was against, then later sent to a country that we had no business in, but I did my job and kept my mouth shut. I am against this treaty, so I guess Tucker will call me unpatriotic as well? Unbelievable. Whoever gave her a pen needs a spanking! Name calling? Oh that’s right… I’m a DISGRUNTLED VETERAN! Again, unbelievable!

Peadawg

December 20th, 2010
9:37 am

Keep, I just don’t see the point of this treaty since it has NOTHING to do with the 2 biggest threats in the world, Iran and North Korea. It seems kinda pointless(and stupid) and reduce missiles and launchers, which in turn will make us more susceptible to an attack from Iran or North Korea.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 20th, 2010
9:41 am

Good morning all. Thus the new “patriotism,” defined by leftist friends as anyone who opposes defense against nuclear weapons.

We all understand that leftists want a worthless treaty, at any cost, and thus are willing to surrender forever presently-unknown developments in technology. No potential laser defenses. No potential smart rocks, No nothing, pass it now, We don’t care whether the US could abolish intercontinental nuclear exchanges via an impregnable defense. We would rather monitor the Russian’s deteriorating nukes, and we ignore the brand new tactical nukes. Patriotism, indeed.

Gary

December 20th, 2010
9:42 am

Since when do we trust the russians to hold up their end of the deal. Wars are not stopped with paper of signatures from diplomats.

Cynthia, why don’t you sit down with your neighbor and convince him that you are going to reduce the nuber of guns in your household so they should to. You could both have a public signing ceremony and the world would be a much safer place? This is nothing more than public posturing.

zeke

December 20th, 2010
9:42 am

WHAT? YOU, C.T., AND MOST LIBERALS, LEFTIST, SO CALLED PROGRESSIVES AND SOCIALISTS ARE THE UNPATRIOTIC BUNCH! AND COMPLAINING ABOUT REPUBLICANS WHEN FROM 2000 THROUGH 2008 DEMOCRAPS DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD THINK UP TO OPPOSE W. BUSH, EVEN SUGGESTING WE HAD LOST THE WAR IN IRAQ AND AGAINST THE MUSLIM TERRORISTS! YOU AND YOUR BUNCH NEED TO KEEP YOUR THOUGHTS TO YOURSELVES AND YOUR RACIST ANTI USA MOUTHS SHUT!!!

lynnie gal

December 20th, 2010
9:42 am

The only explanation for this kind of behavior is that Republicans are Crazy, in addition to being unpatriotic racists. They either need to take their meds or stop taking them, whichever will make their behavior reasonable and understandable.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
9:42 am

Pea…you make absolutely no sense. You have self-defined 2 countries as the biggest threats with absolutely no basis in reality. And you have indicated, again without any logical basis or explanation, that the reductions in certain weapons to a lower level makes us more susceptible to an attack from 2 countries.

Frankly, I trust a lot of other people on these issues before I get too concerned about your unsupported “concerns”.

StJ

December 20th, 2010
9:43 am

As witnessed last month, the majority of the people voted against your policies. The new treaty as written has some serious drawbacks for the US.

Seriously…It’s difficult to win independents over to your side when you’re constantly calling people names like a petulant third grader.

JDW

December 20th, 2010
9:44 am

Peadawg

December 20th, 2010
9:37 am
“Keep, I just don’t see the point of this treaty since it has NOTHING to do with the 2 biggest threats in the world, Iran and North Korea. It seems kinda pointless(and stupid) and reduce missiles and launchers, which in turn will make us more susceptible to an attack from Iran or North Korea.”

I think the point is that being able to verify and monitor the largest, and somewhat unsecure, nuclear arsenal in the world is a good thing.

John

December 20th, 2010
9:44 am

“unpatriotic” so says the socialist.

Peadawg

December 20th, 2010
9:45 am

“You have self-defined 2 countries as the biggest threats with absolutely no basis in reality.”

My apologies. How about the biggest nuclear threats?

Darko

December 20th, 2010
9:46 am

I love how Tucker uses the same “unpatriotic” trick she lambasted Bush for using. How sad.

retired early

December 20th, 2010
9:46 am

GOP= party first…country second.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 20th, 2010
9:48 am

Dear jconservative @ 9:35, Merry Christmas. I note two fatal flaws in your argument.

(1) “Either the former Secretaries of State are correct or they are fools. If you believe fools, you probably also believe they were appointed by presidents who were fools.” You know that is a false equation. We could perhaps agree that foolishness is a prerequisite for all Secretaries of State, a mindless and unhistoric belief in the virtues of negotiation. Every generation, for 150 years, believed it negotiated an end to war, only to find the negotiations led directly to a war. Despots use negotiations to trick the foolish into a unilateral disarming, and of course the foolish try to kick the football every time. As Mr. Chamberlain advised us all, “I have his signature on this paper.”

(2) You magnify the significance of secretaries of state endorsing something. You surely realize no conservative makes decisions according to endorsement by celebrities – that is strictly a leftist behavior. We actually read the treaties, as if the words mean something.

Steve

December 20th, 2010
9:49 am

What is with “granny godzilla”, Is it her full time job to defend CT?

Darwin

December 20th, 2010
9:50 am

I love the right wingnuts who blog here. “socialist”, “liberal”, “pink commies” – you get the idea. How sophmoric. BTW – University of Maryland has determined that devotees of Faux News are the most misinformed bunch of people when it comes to current events. Oh really? That’s a surprise. Just look at this blog and you can understand. You know, if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 happened, what do you think the Republican response would have been? You think these people would have supported our president like was done with W? I sincerely doubt it. They take every opportunity to boost their base no matter what. Gee, now that’s a surprise.

B Cosby

December 20th, 2010
9:51 am

Oppose Obama- Unpatriotic
Oppose Obama- Racist
Oppose Obama- Cracker
oppose Obama- Petty
Oppose Obama= Petulant
That should pretty much cover Tucker for the remainder of the week. Take the rest of the holidays finding other excuses for the Obama the Great Failer, CT.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
9:53 am

With some prominent Republicans angry over passage of legislation ending the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, the mood in the Senate turned increasingly divisive and Mr. Obama and Democratic lawmakers scrambled to hold together a coalition to approve the treaty

Republicans…. “we dont care about the country, we want to pout.”

Mystified

December 20th, 2010
9:53 am

I didn’t realize Russia was our threat. It seems to me we should be dealing with current threats not a has been superpower. Why would we handcuff ourselves with this treaty with Russia when our nuclear threats are with North Korea, Iran, and the growing animosity between Pakistan and India? Is it just to give Obama a victory? Really? Isn’t that like signing a peace treaty with Mexico during WW2?

Nothing Is Free

December 20th, 2010
9:54 am

Keep Up

From the basement

- -Ahh the false persecution card. “Non-beleivers” dont hate the fact that “Christians love Christmas”. Many “believers” do dislike the commercial overtones of what to them is to be religious holiday.- -

We were discussing the musical aspect yesterday, but now you want to talk about the commercial aspect. I suppose if the atheist were a merchant, the commercial side of Christmas would be the only part he likes.

- – “Non-believers” who are not Christian may dislike that Christmas used to be thrown out there without recognition of other holidays that are as meaning to them as yours is to you.- –

You can celebrate any holiday that you can dream up. There just happens to be a few billion people that already celebrate this particular holiday so it does get rather big. Deal with it.

- -And non-beleivers and many believers do hate when you try to impose Christmas or Christian believes into government, the courts, the schools, etc.- -

You have it backwards. Religion has always been a part of our justice system. It has been the constant attempts at taking it out of our courts that have been yet another whining point for people who want a court system based more on political ideology than moral ideology.

- -Few, if any, have ever said you are not welcome to your believes….just stop trying to force others to participate in “Christmas”, silent prayers, overt prayers, religious symbols on government property or any other number of silly things.- -

You are being forced to pray? Please, call 9-11 if you are afraid. And it’s a little late to worry about that religious symbol thing. Christian /Judea symbols are already all over our court buildings, especially the halls of the supreme court.

- -“I have found that most homosexual men have simply not emotionally matured past adolescence where everything is sexual.” — frankly I think that reflects your own immaturity and prejudice.- -

Frankly I don’t think that you, a person who regularly gather all your imaginary enemies in groups and despairing the entire group, carries the credibility to make judgements about my opinions. And strangely enough, I share that belief with a life long gay friend; so is he also prejudice, or just me?

- -You have not met “most homosexual men” to even be a judge.- -

And you have not met all Republicans, but that certainly does stop your incessant whining.

- -But hey, let’s judge heterosexuals by the likes of those who attend strip clubs or the sexual maturity of Howard Stern and his listeners. Let’s judge most marketing people by the sexuality portrayed in their marketing. You may want to learn about that grubby twigs and berry in your face and tell me about the maturity level of sanctimonius marketing people.- -

This part of your post is extremely reveling. I deal with marketing demographics every day in my work. You solidly just put yourself in the 15-25 year old demographic. I would never give a thought to AXE or Howard Stern. I get marketing for mutual funds and buying gold. The lack of education, art, culture and common manners by your demographic is hardly an issue that concerns me. Most of you wouldn’t know the difference between Bach and Shotakovich and that lack of education is reflected in your media, as you more than clearly pointed out.

Question

December 20th, 2010
9:55 am

Reaching once again CT? Perhaps you can answer how have we gotten to this point where we are debating important issues with just days left before the new year? Perhaps you recall the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for FOUR years and have had little problem in the past 2 years “jamming” other damaging boondoogles down our throats…

luangtom

December 20th, 2010
9:56 am

Have people reading the AJC been seeing history and remembering ALL of those treaties signed in the past? Exactly how many have been true to their word and actually stopped the parties signing from doing anything against the protocols outlined in the treaty? If any of the parties were caught breaking the treaty, exactly what were the consequences for the offending party? Yes, that is correct. NOTHING. No sanctioning-body meted out punishment, no UN sanctions with any effect were implemented and no one wanted to upset the parties even more. Most of these treaties are just “feel-good” works of prose meant to placate the bleeding-hearts. The treaties of the past with the Soviet Union. Red China, Korea, Libya and all of the rest certainly have done nothing to alleviate the world’s troubles and concerns. Do YOU trust Putin and the rest to abide by the treaties? Do you trust the US government to abide by the treaties?

Mystified

December 20th, 2010
9:56 am

Keep…
What on earth do the Republicans have to pout about? They are kicking the dems butt at every corner. Losing State houses, losing the house, losing a supermajority,

Your policies don’t work…America sees it and is acting accordingly. They are saying no.

are there no prisons; are there no workhouses?

December 20th, 2010
9:56 am

Just don’t cancel the funding for the Doomsday machine.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
9:57 am

Darwin@9:50
“if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 happened”
“You think these people would have supported our president like was done with W?”
I suspect there would have been little to support. Since we’re guessing here. Saddam would still been power. We wouldn’t be in Afghanistan. Maybe (at most) a few air and Tomahawk strikes in training camps or aspirin factories. Condemnation of the terrorist and clean up the mess. End of story.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
9:59 am

Nonsense child…do try to grow up. We’ve moved on from your nonsense from yesterday. This is a blog about START today.

Avenger

December 20th, 2010
10:01 am

Dawg. “Ya the “word of the month” is unpatriotic. First the GOP was racist, then bigots. I can’t keep track of the words Cynthia uses to describe the GOP” It is what it is..

Alpha23

December 20th, 2010
10:01 am

Who cares what you think!!!!

[...] Amendment to START Accord Fails Senate; Debate ContinuesFox NewsCNN International -CNN -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 1,825 news articles » No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post) [...]

Starring Kam Fong as Chin Ho

December 20th, 2010
10:04 am

Alas CT, it is Christmas and still the venom and vitriol flows. I honestly didn’t expect anything more. Merry Christmas anyway.

Nothing Is Free

December 20th, 2010
10:04 am

Keep up

Just as I expected. The attention span of most adolescents are extremely short.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:05 am

Nonsense…another childish pout and demand for attention. Please do grow up.

wtf?

December 20th, 2010
10:05 am

CT-you have actually made a good point here. Although, extra harshly worded, the Reps, are stalling this long overdue treaty so Obama can’t take credit for it’s passing. They have no valid excuse other than business as usual D.C. politics.

That’s why I’m an equal opportunity offender, dems and reps are both snakes in the grass.(and the libritarian and tea partyers have their own dirty politics as well)

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
10:06 am

Keep Up et al -

I’m all for reductions in arms, if it makes sense. Right now, with the seemingly headlong rush into nuclear proliferation seen in Iran, and with North Korea testing bombs underground, and with India and Pakistan always glaring at each other across the border, I cans ee why it makes sense for us to call Russia and say we’ll cut down our arsenal if you cut down yours.

I sometimes wish I could buy into this liberal ideal that negotiation and appeasement actualyl work, but then I remember that I took History classes in college and it was there that I learned that negotiation and appeasement rarely work the way you wish they would. Negotiation may postpone the inevitable, but appeasement merely whets the appetite of the dictator.

A Lumpkin Resident

December 20th, 2010
10:07 am

In the month of December, Cynthia Tucker has been wrong about 1) Don’t ask don’t tell and 2) extending unemployment benefits, two issues she derided Republicans about and was WRONG within weeks. This is not a “patriotic” issue. The DEMOCRATS have had eight months to take up the issue, and now in the last three day of the session the Republicans are “unpatriotic”. What a crock of horse squeeze. There is nothing about START that has to be taken up in three days, and there is nothing about START that is “patriotic” or otherwise. This issue will be resolved. If this is all you can come up with as a topic, Cynthia, you are grasping for straws.

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
10:08 am

Dave

December 20th, 2010
10:08 am

Funny, I thought Hillary Clinton stated (or more accurately, screeched) that disagreeing with the current administration was the patriotic thing to do… guess that’s only when you disagree with a Republican adminstration.

Don

December 20th, 2010
10:08 am

Ms. Tucker, don’t you dare start the “unpatriotic” business again – this treaty was crafted specifically to give President Obama that “victory” you talk about with little or no regard as to whether it will actually accomplish its object. For the left it’s better to appear to do something rather than to actually do something.

wtf?

December 20th, 2010
10:09 am

If you do some digging, you’ll see everyone who is anyone on both sides of the house/senate has endorsed this very meaningful treaty in the past, then everyone put the brakes on it while they figured out how to get the most political capital out of it.

Pass the darn thing already

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:09 am

my prior comment is awaiting moderation i think because it contained a link to a news article describing the wikileaks documents.

Nothing Is Free

December 20th, 2010
10:11 am

Keep Up

You seemed to be pretending to be able to discuss issues and to control your emotions, but I see you are back to normal today.

Perhaps staying on the meds for more than a day would have been a better idea for you.

But good luck to you today. it’s already getting ugly for you. Several tantrums by you, already. Others are trying to treat you like an adult and you are the little twit, stomping your feet and calling others names.

So sad.

JKL2

December 20th, 2010
10:11 am

Darwin- You know, if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 happened, what do you think the Republican response would have been? You think these people would have supported our president like was done with W?

Yes, they would have tried to supported the president. Unfortunately. President Gore would have done nothing in response the way Clinton did nothing in response to attacks against our country. Hard to support “do nothing” as a policy when you’re being attacked.

I’m sure the obama policy of “apologize and throw money at them” will continue to win over the hearts of the world.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:12 am

“keep up the good fight” – yeah, since START was so fantastic, why then did the US need to try to negotiate a secret and publicly denied deal with Russia? oh yeah, cause the treaty is aweful and they know it. Wikileaks exposed these discussions. the US has been trying to deal around START to maintain its nuclear deterrence capabilities. Russia has been hesitant to do so.

If the administration knows this is a pile of dung and both hillary clinton and Gates both lied before the senate, why are people like Cynthia defending it? oh yeah, forgot, to do otherwise would be racist and unpatriot. My bad.

The truth shall set you free…from your progressive tendencies.

Ed

December 20th, 2010
10:12 am

Personally, I can’t wait until the GOP takes over everything and the entire country collapses around them. The GOP wants a one-party-rule, conservative, pure-capitalistic government right here in America. Sounds a lot like China. Except they are far too greedy to have the success at it that the Chinese have, so welcome to Third World America, home of the GOP. It’s gonna happen sooner than later, too.

George W

December 20th, 2010
10:13 am

Ctucker….wake up you are still dreaming wake up! You are right, it is unpatriotic to not want to diminish our arms so that the playing tables of warfare are more “even” in world. This is just like Obama’s socialist world views. Lets make everyone even….doesnt makes sense.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:14 am

I sometimes wish I could buy into this liberal ideal that negotiation and appeasement actualyl work

Please do explain this “appeasement” which apparently so many Republicans have participated in and continue to participate in. Be very specific. Which countries have been taken over? Which Republicans have come out and said that this treaty is absolutely wrong and not just that they dont like the negotiated terms or that they have not “read” the treaty.

retired early

December 20th, 2010
10:14 am

America has 140 nuclear submarines. It would take just one Trident sub to destroy EVERY city in the entire Northern Hemisphere. Each sub has more firepower than all the bombs used in WW II…. TIMES THREE !!!
Now, who on this blog said something stupid about this START treaty compromising our ability to defend ourselves…People, if you don’t know what you are talking about…. do us all a favor and just SHUT UP!!!

wtf?

December 20th, 2010
10:15 am

ED, you’re a complete fool. It’s obvious you know less than nothing about Chinese or American history

George W

December 20th, 2010
10:18 am

Retired….you are exaderrating that fact that ONE Trident Sub can destry every city in the Northern Hemisphere. They are very powerful but not that much!

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:21 am

Nonsense….childish behavior and demanding attention time and time again does not mean your nonsense and lies have any greater import. You just hate it when you cant keep up with the adult conversation.

Kamchak

December 20th, 2010
10:22 am

Saying Republicans question the patriotism of Democrats during the Bush administration (when they NEVER did) and then now calling Republicans unpatriotic for not supporting the treaty.

You really wanna go there, sport?

From Ann Coulter’s 2003 book Treason:

Fifty Years of Treason

Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don’t. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.

You did specifically use the word “Republican,” so do you wish to argue that Ann Coulter isn’t a Republican?

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
10:22 am

Keep Up –
Allow me to apologize for the exaggeration. I forgot once again that a liberal may say anthing they want without fear of reprisal, but a conservative must offer heavily detailsed citation to support their point of view.

Darwin

December 20th, 2010
10:22 am

So, you guys think that our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a success? BTW – what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Oh well, I guess you prove the second point of my blog. You watch too much Faux News. Oh, and I guess we wouldn’t have had such a deficit. Oh right, that Obama’s fault.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:23 am

funny how the dems keep blaming the repubs for their failures. hey CT, unless i am mistaken, dont the dems have a supermajority currently in the senate. if they wanted to pass it, they could, but they know that not all dems are for the treaty as well.

give me a break. how does it feel to know that according to the latest polling, the percentage of american people considering themselves liberals are coming close to an all historic low. good job, pelosi. at least some people realize that the party of handouts, amnesty and prostration is worthless.

Concerned veteran

December 20th, 2010
10:23 am

I think this treaty should be a priority…Why stockpile masses of weapons if the ones we do have remaining would do the job…On a small scale, I mean…
As far as President Obama being re-elected to a second term…There is little chance of that happening…VERY little….

Nothing's homie.

December 20th, 2010
10:24 am

I like a little pepper with my salt. That’s all us conservatives are saying about the treaty.

Mr Obama: where’s the pepper?

David

December 20th, 2010
10:24 am

If the treaty is so important, why is the Senate taking it up just now, in the midst of a lame duck session, with extreme time pressure? Is this a proper way to consider a major treaty for our country?

And, CT, I’m finding you and Bookman increasingly resorting to questioning their opponents’ patriotism. Perhaps you’re turning to this last refuge of scoundrels because you’ve discovered you have no more race cards to play.

George W

December 20th, 2010
10:25 am

Darwin….HBO has a special on right now called “House of Saddam” I suggest you watch it.

Jimmy62

December 20th, 2010
10:25 am

15 years after the Democrats started DADT, a policy many of their voters claim is bigoted, it took a major electoral defeat and the rise of the supposedly racist and homophobic GOP to reverse the policy.

It’s interesting how for all the rhetoric about how racist and bigoted the right is, almost all major legislation protecting the rights of minorities came from the right. And almost all racist legislation that favors one group over another, or denies the rights of a particular group, came from the left.

Rhetoric= GOP is racist, Dems are good.

Reality= Dems make racist and bigoted policies, GOP reverses them.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
10:26 am

retired early@10:14
I don’t think anybody’s arguing numbers. My problem is locking out anti-missle development with a country that is basically not a threat. The Russians don’t want to throw nukes around any more than we do. Personally, I think we should have a no proliferation deal added where missile defense is only non-deployable outside of CONUS. Let the countries that involved with their defense deal with it. We can’t keep worrying about everyone else’s defense.
How many nukes we have is beside the point. We’re not going to use them unless all h@#l breaks loose. We basically arguing a treaty that would be appropriate in the 80’s.

retired early

December 20th, 2010
10:26 am

Luangtom

Putin is not the president of Russia.
So….we should never have treaties…”they do no good…”
Sounds like the best rationalization for denying Obama a ‘victory’ that you could come up with on short notice….oh, i’m sorry……rationalization means “making up things to prove your point”.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:27 am

acjs… A supermajority in the current Senate. Hmmmm… do tell me the 60 votes that the Dems have and explain how the fillabuster and cloture processes work. Then since you apparently live in a distorted reality, we can understand your claims.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:28 am

retire early-
sorry, you are just wrong. now, are you going to take your own advice or are you going to attempt to explain yourself away? i for one bet that you will not admit you are wrong, but hey, its Christmas time at least.

Kamchak

December 20th, 2010
10:29 am

Most of you wouldn’t know the difference between Bach and Shotakovich…

Bach was Baroque, never heard of this Shotakovich individual.

Darwin

December 20th, 2010
10:30 am

Joel @9:57 “if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 happened”
“You think these people would have supported our president like was done with W?”
“I suspect there would have been little to support. Since we’re guessing here. Saddam would still been power. We wouldn’t be in Afghanistan. Maybe (at most) a few air and Tomahawk strikes in training camps or aspirin factories. Condemnation of the terrorist and clean up the mess. End of story.”

Saddam would stil been power. Where’s the WMD? Lies lies lies lies lies, from the right wing facists that run the Republican party.

JKL2 @ 10:11 “You know, if Al Gore had been president when 9/11 happened, what do you think the Republican response would have been? You think these people would have supported our president like was done with W?

Yes, they would have tried to supported the president. Unfortunately. President Gore would have done nothing in response the way Clinton did nothing in response to attacks against our country. Hard to support “do nothing” as a policy when you’re being attacked.

I’m sure the obama policy of “apologize and throw money at them” will continue to win over the hearts of the world.”

You’re the one who needs to apologize. Your comments are biased and baseless.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
10:30 am

Darwin@10:22
“So, you guys think that our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a success?”
Nope, never said that. If you guessing about things might have been, might as well make up stuff also.

Jack

December 20th, 2010
10:30 am

If some liberals trust Russia, they’ve found some pretty good stuff to smoke.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:31 am

“keep u” – unlike others in this board, i will admit that i am wrong. i thought they did have a supermajority with the two indies caucasing with the dems. I forgot about brown.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:32 am

I forgot once again that a liberal may say anthing they want without fear of reprisal, but a conservative must offer heavily detailsed citation to support their point of view

Grief, again with the exaggeration. Reprisals?

You admit that this is not “appeasement” corrrect? So we dont have to deal with that perjorative distortion.

GT/MIT

December 20th, 2010
10:33 am

retired early:

Your comment gives pause to the question, how is Aamerica coping with national security without your expertise?

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
10:35 am

ajcs

yes you are mistaken

i’d think somebody as all fired smart as you woulda’ known that….

T-Town

December 20th, 2010
10:35 am

Whether the START pact is ratified or not could be, should be, very important. What has my attention is that Ms. Tucker uses the word unpatriotic when describing those within the Republican party that won’t support it. As I remember in 2007, when he was campaigning for president, then Senator Obama was photographed failing to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. Now, we he unpatriotic? Or would it be unpatriotic for me to bring this up.

retired early

December 20th, 2010
10:35 am

Joel Edge

I completely agree that we need to go further in the START treaty to reduce any further advancement of Nuclear weapons, but it’s always 2 steps forward, 1 step back with the Russians and we connote even get this “lame” version thru our own GOP Senate, so….what do you do…for now ???
You just pass the best you can get .

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:35 am

Jack…. Again one of the major points of the treaty is verification.

ajcs — glad we got that cleared up

Darwin

December 20th, 2010
10:35 am

Joel blogged: “Saddam would still been power. We wouldn’t be in Afghanistan. ”
I ask again, why mention Saddam? What does Saddam have to do with 9/11? Your blog insinuates that we needed to remove Saddam due to 9/11. And you state we wouldn’t be in Afghanistan. Take a look at the polls lately? I ask that you try and provide a basis for your misinformed comments. Maybe a true leader would have gone into Afghanistan and hunted down OBL. And not moved our forces away from the original theatre and into Iraq.

George W

December 20th, 2010
10:36 am

Darwin….Please answer this question. Prior to W going to war with Iraq what other US President(s) went to war with Saddam?

jconservative

December 20th, 2010
10:37 am

Ragnar Danneskjöld

And a Merry Christmas to you and your family. I am sure you would agree that in this country we spend too much time contemplating the return of Santa instead of contemplating the return of the Son of Man.

On the treaty:

I have read the treaty. Have you read the treaty? (Hint – I am retired and have the time.) Like all treaties it has too many words. Apparently the written language was created for business contracts and treaties. Grunts and sign language seem to work for everything else.

There is no opposition to the treaty today based on the claim that this treaty “disarms” the USA. That claim was advanced during the early fall
but was dropped a few weeks ago in the face of reality. The main opposition to the treaty today is not on the treaty itself but on the timing of the vote,the US spending on the US arsenal and the Preamble to the treaty.

McCain has a problem with the Preamble to the treaty and its language on defensive missiles. And I can see his point. But his opposition is on the Preamble. The body of the treaty has no provision on defensive missiles to which McCain objects. McCain attempted to amend the treaty Preamble but lost on a close vote.

I do not know how this vote will come down. McCain has a problem with the treaty and his problem is one of substance. The Kyl and McConnell reasoning is pure political to my reading of their stated positions.

Having read the treaty and hundreds of pages pro and con on the matter I would vote for ratification.

But the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote on treaties for a reason. The reason is that every president, when negotiating a treaty knows it must get a 2/3 vote in the US Senate, before the treaty is ratified. Every country negotiating with the US knows that it is only so much waste paper unless ratified by the US Senate. A large majority of the Senate should look at the proposed treaty and make a decision on the treaty.
On the treaty! The Senate owes that to the country.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:37 am

Granny – thanks for your comment. now you know why no one ever admits their mistakes. because people like you will not just accept it and move on. no, you have to make a snide remark and kick a person while they are down.

please stay in CT’s and Obama’s camp. for those of us that are bootstrapping ourselves and trying to work America out of this mess the repubs and dems created, we really do not need your kind.

The Fallen

December 20th, 2010
10:37 am

I think its funny that anytime someone disagrees with the Democrats they are, according to CT, unpatriotic. Democrats are the only ones allowed to dissent. I am not surprised, just pointing out what everyone already knows.

T-Town

December 20th, 2010
10:38 am

Enter your comments here

gatorman770

December 20th, 2010
10:39 am

What branch of service did you serve in Cindy?
You sure make the graduates of Auburn that HAVE read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers and have common sense, look dumb when people find out you’re supposedly a Auburn Graduate!

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
10:40 am

“Where’s the WMD? Lies lies lies lies lies, from the right wing facists that run the Republican party.”

WMDs were found, in the form of gases and chemicals used in the process. So while a ’shovel-ready’ WMD was not located, the parts for one were in Saddam’s possession. It’s not the right’s fault that the left-leaning media continues to change the definition of things.

Dirty Dawg

December 20th, 2010
10:41 am

I know many of those around here don’t care why folks aren’t as happy with Obama as they were, but I also know that a pretty large percentage of those ‘negatives’ are from those of us that think he should have had Bush, Cheney and, at least, half of that vile administration in jail by now.

As for the Republicans’ view of the START Treaty, fact is they’re just pissed that they’ve spent the past, almost, two years dedicated and working hard to see to it that this administration, and the Democratic Congress, didn’t do anything that could potentially be seen as ‘helping’ the country…and now they’re seeing all their work, or at least a lot of it, going down the drain…the bast***s.

Kamchak

December 20th, 2010
10:42 am

I think its funny that anytime someone disagrees with the Democrats Republicans they are, according to CT Ann Coulter, unpatriotic.

fixed your typos.

JKL2

December 20th, 2010
10:42 am

darwin- You’re the one who needs to apologize

Still waiting on the opinion poll results to decide what I should do. I’m sure to teleprompter will have a lovely speech waiting for me later that will help me dodge the issue. It’s my “lazer-like focus on job creation” that has me acting so confused…

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
10:42 am

retired early@10:35
“to reduce any further advancement of Nuclear weapons”
I would love to learn how this treaty is going to do that. North Korea has shown no interest in abandoning it efforts to gain a nuclear capacity and a delivery system. Iran, ditto. We’ve gone well beyond superpowers exchanging nukes in the apocalypse. Now it’s more likely a shipping container in major harbor.

Darwin

December 20th, 2010
10:42 am

George W – And what am I going to learn? That the U.S. props up dictators just like the communists? That the U.S. overthrow democracies just to get oil?

joe in tucker

December 20th, 2010
10:43 am

Typical Cynthia article – disagree with the president ( or any black politician for that matter ) and she gets her liberal panties in a wad and breaks out the race card… and the AJC wonders why i won’t pay for a subscription!

ronald

December 20th, 2010
10:43 am

“You sure make the graduates of Auburn that HAVE read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers and have common sense, look dumb.”

Lets be clear here…Auburn is not exactly where the southeastern braintrust resides.Its basically a party haven for metro Atlanta kids who didn’t get into Georgia or Georgia Tech. And stop acting offended, you know its true.

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
10:43 am

ajcs

correcting your error is being kicked while you are down? bootstrapping yourselves?

it’s a bit early for melodrama.

B Cosby

December 20th, 2010
10:44 am

T-Town @ 10:35. Yes it would be unpatriotic for you to suggest anything on this blog about the Savior. The same man that refused to wear a lapel pin of the U.S. flag because he did not have to prove his patriotism to anyone. The person who’s wife is finally proud to be an American after her husband picks up a nomination, yet this woman has no problem spending our tax dollars on pwersonal vacations. What was she elected to?

Darwin

December 20th, 2010
10:46 am

George W: “Darwin….Please answer this question. Prior to W going to war with Iraq what other US President(s) went to war with Saddam?” Answer: Your papa sent Rumsfield to meet with Saddam in the 1980s after he gassed the Kurds. The U.S. government’s position was that it was an internal affair to be dealt with by the Iraqi people. At that time, Saddam was a dictator favored by the West. Actually, it was the CIA who helped put him into power.

ronald

December 20th, 2010
10:47 am

“I think its funny that anytime someone disagrees with the Democrats Republicans they are, according to CT Ann Coulter, unpatriotic.”

Conservatives never annointed Ann Coulter as their official spokesman. Its another tactic by left..to basically choose our most extreme voice and then pretend that she speaks for all of us. She doesn’t.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:48 am

Yes. Let’s all agree. Wearing a lapel flag is what defines you are patriotic or not. Why I bet if Osama wore a US flag lapel pin he would be a republican patriot.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
10:48 am

Darwin @10:35
“Your blog insinuates that we needed to remove Saddam due to 9/11.”
My blog insinuates none of that. If Gore had been president (your supposition) then I’m merely supposing that we would have never gone into Iraq, or Afghanistan. WMDs or not. After much saber rattling and weeping, we would have done basically nothing. Maybe a in-the-dark assassination attempt. Maybe not even that.

I like ajcs even if granny doesnt

December 20th, 2010
10:49 am

now, onto some hypocrisy:

From the Democrats.org website -
“Democrats have a long and proud history of defending Civil Rights and expanding opportunity for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, Democrats have fought to end discrimination in all forms—including discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, or disability…”

Democrats have been consistently racist and give handouts to the poor, black and hispanic, uneducated poplace to keep them in line (dont bite the hand that feeds you). they also fill their ranks with people that think they are smarter than everyone else.

Since Lincolns time, Dems have been opposed to ALL equality when it was not popular and amazingly support equality when it is an easy choice (again, Dems have no spine). Lincoln was unpopular and called a traitor by the opposing party (yeah, thats you dems). JFK opposed all civil rights legislation until it became a popular thing to do so (look at all the civil rights bills the republicans tried to pass in the 50’s and were continually block by, you guessed it, the dems). DADT was a clinton-led initiative, and if I am not mistaken, he was a democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

so dems, get off your high horse, come down from the ivory tower, and be honest with yourselves. You all are the racist, homophobes that try to censor opposition speak and writings.

The Fallen

December 20th, 2010
10:53 am

CT also thinks I am unpatriotice because I would rather pass along the fruits of my labor to my children than have the government seize 55% of it upon my passing. She thinks the government has more right to it than my offspring, and I am unpatriotic for not agreeing with her.

Typical.

retired early

December 20th, 2010
10:53 am

Joel
I am not saying this START treaty does that… just the opposite. I also was referring to this $ to advance the weapons themselves..as in newer… more clever ways to pop a nuke.

Tommy Maddox

December 20th, 2010
10:53 am

“Party over national security”?

Would that be similar to the Dems howling about military issues during the Bush years or leaked military planning information being broadcast by the NY Times?

Gm

December 20th, 2010
10:53 am

B Cosby: I bet you had no problem with other first ladies spending your tax dollars? She and other 30 million African Americans who fathers fathers were beaten and murdered have every right to feel like that.
Look at the hate toward her husband by some of the sick tea party people, before you shoot off at the mouth put your self in other people shoes.

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
10:54 am

What’s wrong with having a detailed review and floor debate of a treaty that was negotiated by the Obama team? If it was worth the paper it is written on then it would stand up to scrutiny. Why try and ram it through a lame duck session of Congress, just like the omnibus bill. The current congress is not legitimate as the American people sent a loud and clear message on November 2nd.

What is unprecedented Tucker, is that a lame duck session of congress trying to enact major pieces of legislation, that simply is not done and flies in the face of the election.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:54 am

and granny, “keep up the good fight” had already corrected my error and you know it. you merely were piggybacking on his correction and decided to throw in a cheap shot to boot.

George W

December 20th, 2010
10:56 am

Darwin….your ignorance amazes me. What about Clinton. Research Clinton and Iraq you may be surprised.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
10:57 am

retired early@10:53
“I am not saying this START treaty does that… just the opposite.”
Then what’s the point. Drag out the one that expired, lower the numbers and get it re-ratified. Then move on. At least agreement could be found on that one. Without maybe limiting our defensive ability.
Better the animal you know…..

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
10:57 am

Tommy

Yep

Party over national security. That’s exactly it.

And no it would not be like pointing out that we attacked a country that did not attack us. That was and still is true and needs to be pointed out over and over and over.

And no it would not be like the NYT leaks any more than it would be about outing a CIA agent.

It’s kinda like protecting your darling daughter from loose nukes.

ronald

December 20th, 2010
10:58 am

“CT also thinks I am unpatriotice because I would rather pass along the fruits of my labor to my children than have the government seize 55% of it upon my passing. She thinks the government has more right to it than my offspring, and I am unpatriotic for not agreeing with her. Typical.”

The Fallen- Sadly, you are correct here. That is exactly how CT thinks. People like her would refer to your children as “lazy” “greedy” and “not hard working” because you left them an inheritance. They never think back to the long hours that you put in. In CT’s case, as is the case with most blacks in the US, this attitude is likely driven by racial overtones. They see wealth as something that is unfairly accumulated by caucasians, and they use gov’t tools like estate tax as a way to redistribute wealth to minorities. If African Americans saved at the same rate as Caucasian American and were able to generate similar levels of wealth, then you wouldn’t see people like CT fighting tooth and nail for estate taxes.

Darwin

December 20th, 2010
10:59 am

After winning the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan, who accused Jimmy Carter of negotiating with terrorists, started selling spare jet fighter parts to Iran. The profits were then funneled to fight an illegal war in Nicaragua. During the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. sided with the Iranians. This was mainly due to the secret dealings with the spare parts. Once that was exposed, the Reagan administration did an about face and started supporting Iraq. This was to ensure the American people that we were not dealing with those Iranian terrorists. Google “Saking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984.” If HBO wants to tell me something I don’t know, that’s good. But let’s put it in context with the entire U.S. policy toward the middle east.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
10:59 am

“The Fallen” – you are mistaken. sorry. everyone that makes less than $20k that still goes out and buys new electronics (like a big screen tv), new clothes and new wheels for their cars deserves that money more than you. are you stupid? just because you worked for it and already paid taxes for it, just think of how a Congress with a 13% approval rating could come up with better ways to spread that money around.

I mean, all that passing of the wealth around has helped poor black people so much, right? yeah, just because now more young black men are in jail than are in college shouldnt deter you from sacrificing for the common good.

geesh, you really need to be more patriotic and less racist.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:59 am

Someone needs to real the blog a little more carefully….. a treaty around since April is now “rammed”?

What is unprecedented Tucker, is that a lame duck session of congress trying to enact major pieces of legislation, that simply is not done and flies in the face of the election

Yeah, especially when you ignore realities like the Party of No, the unprecedented use of the filibuster process and other vote blocking processes to require a supermajority.

Again, explain why of course a simple majority in the Senate cannot be allowed to pass laws does not fly in the face of elections.

Tommy Maddox

December 20th, 2010
11:00 am

Our nukes protect my daughter from their nukes.

cosby

December 20th, 2010
11:00 am

Yawn..another hate blogg against the Republicans…START…does anyone really know what is in it…have all the documents of negotiation been released and read by congress…another “We have to do it now” push without thoroughly examining the affects – see Health Care- tired of congress neglicting their job just to rush a bill through. Sure, lets cut our defense and watch what the likes iof Iran and N. Korea do…The most important job congress has, given them by The Constitution, is to protect this country and what happens, they rush a treaty through at the last second without knowing what it says or its affect.And the Republicans get the blame for not wanting to do that.

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
11:01 am

Lame duck? ah nope.

Got the tax deal, got DADT repealed, got the radio bill passed, got the food bill passed, and we will get START.

Oh and GET REAL

The Bush taxs were passed by RECONCIALIATION during a LAME DUCK session.

Blathering is not a good look for you.

George W

December 20th, 2010
11:01 am

Darwin….And your point? Ever hear of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer?”

The Fallen

December 20th, 2010
11:01 am

AJCS….thanks for smacking me back into line… I can’t believe that I let myself stray that far.

George W

December 20th, 2010
11:02 am

Granny….you are exactly right. Obama did EXACTLY what the repubs wanted him to do. A few more of these and he may become a repub!

retired early

December 20th, 2010
11:04 am

Joel

“Now it’s more like a shipping container…”
Exactly!!!
Our future problem is nukes still unaccounted for in these former USSR countries, who will surly receive considerable offers form Iran and others for them. If this treaty does ANYTHING to protect us from this happening…like at least “counting” them, it’s worth it.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
11:04 am

and if you want to see welfare abuse, sign up for a local toy drive and deliver the toys. it is sickening that some of these people are on welfare. some of the insides of those houses and apartments were better than what i live in now.

but, at least when i look in the mirror, I can honestly say that I tried to earn every dollar that I made.

George W

December 20th, 2010
11:06 am

HERE IS A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL!! Ok, Clinton inacted DADT. Before that gays were not allowed in the military at all! So if we repeal DADT doesn’t that still mean that gays cannot serve? There was not a new bill passed allowing gays to serve.

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
11:06 am

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
10:59 am

Hey Pal….I am not saying the Republicans are clean. The treaty has not been brought up prior to this time, at least not to be debated in detail. However, at the end of the day it is not something that should be ratified in the lame duck, get over it.

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
11:08 am

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
11:01 am

Oh and Granny, how much does Obama tip when you are doing a lap dance?

Billybob

December 20th, 2010
11:08 am

It’s official and proven by Cynthia Tucker……Far Left Radical Socialist Democrats will never stop ‘agitating’ until they control everything through ‘their’ ideas of fairness. Keep talking tucker and all your usual socialist/social justice minions, because trust me when I say you are continuing to lose independents in this country. Tucker’s hit squad need not apply…..and merry Christmas to all

ME

December 20th, 2010
11:10 am

Cynthia, you dumb hussy. START also requires we cut back on other military things not nuclear. This means ships and many others. But to hell with defending the USA.

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
11:10 am

“The Fallen” – that is okay. And just for the record, if you are a CEO that works 100 hour work weeks, spends most of your life in the office or on the road to help make money for your company to keep people employed, that wake your kids up at 11pm on some nights just to say hello once a week, went to school and worked two jobs to pay for college, eating ramen noodles and taco bell to get by, who could not afford a honeymoon because he took a low earning job that had potential, who gives thousands of dollars a year to charity, who stresses out all the time and needs blood pressure medication because he is worried about having to cut his workforce if he does not sell enough product …if you are that guy, you also should be paying a heck of a lot more in your taxes for the folks that choose welfare instead of the low paying job. you should cough it up for those that vote for the black guy or female because they know that their vote will keep the unearned entitlements coming because, although their ancestors werent slaves, they still should get reparations and because their victim status is the white man’s fault.

ronald

December 20th, 2010
11:11 am

“and if you want to see welfare abuse, sign up for a local toy drive and deliver the toys. it is sickening that some of these people are on welfare. some of the insides of those houses and apartments were better than what i live in now.”

Another round of welfare and benefits reform is just around the corner. The incoming GOP congressmen will push the issue in 2011 as part of the required spending cuts. Taxpayers are sick and tired of paying for everyone else’s problems. If the GOP doesn’t sharply curb entitlement spending, they will be pushed out of Congress just as quickly as they came in.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
11:12 am

Get Real….again the purpose of Congress is to work and pass laws. The lame duck is hard at work which they should be. Do explain exactly how it is that laws and treaties should not be passed in a lawfully elected and sworn in Congress? Point me to the constitutional provision too while you are at it.

ctucker

December 20th, 2010
11:12 am

Rob@9:15, If the treaty does as you (and Fox News) suggest, why does Condoleezza Rice support it? Why does every living secretary of state support it? Why do Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn support it? Why does Bush 41 support it?

Kamchak

December 20th, 2010
11:13 am

I see that someone has a new sock-puppet.

ronald

December 20th, 2010
11:13 am

I also encourage all the conservatives on this site to send an email to Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski. Senator Murkowski voted YES on the Dream Act legislation.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
11:16 am

retired early@11:04
“…like at least “counting” them”
And does this treaty allow us to count the nukes in North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or India? It’s not like all of the nukes have been built, and no more can be built. It’s not a finite number. The Russian nukes may all be accounted for….. so there is not some Venezuelan egg-head figuring out the trigger device from old documents smuggled out of the old Soviet Union. Our own documents?

uga63

December 20th, 2010
11:17 am

So being wary of a treaty that would prevent the US from developing ABM capabilities (ie, the ability to shoot down an incoming warhead) in the future is unpatriotic? Did I miss something? Please explain.
Reducing the deployed delivery vehicles to 700? The Russians are already below this number. This leaves the US as the only actor liable for a reduction.
Reducing the number of warheads to 1550 without capping the number of MIRVed warheads? This is smoke and mirrors. A single Russian MIRVed warhead can contain 3-10 nuclear warheads.
In sum, the US is prohibited from future investment in her own defense systems, volunteers to reduce deployment capabilities that the Russians can’t even meet, and in an accounting trick of the highest order agrees to limit warhead capabilities to an artifically low number.
What, pray tell, renders opposition to such a one-sided treaty unpatriotic?

ajcs

December 20th, 2010
11:21 am

uga63 – the reasons you pointed out are the same reasons the US has been trying to secretly deal with Russia for the past several months. exposed by wikileaks, the dealings were flatly denied by Clinton and Gates. Yet, some of the communications leaked were either written by are had clinton and gates courtesy copied. the leaked memos even show the time and dates of the secret and denied meetings.

but hey, support it to be patriotic and not racist.

Gm

December 20th, 2010
11:23 am

Good Grief: think they can help President Obama.
Why is doing something for the good of the country about helping Obama? Are there two Americans?
When will you idiots get it , when he fails everyone fails.
I did not hear this none sense when Bush was in office, does it take another 611 attack for you Obama haters to realize this is one country.
Thank you President Obama for passing Obama care because you care for Americans, dont ask dont tell, equal rights equal pay, unemployment for the 2 million families who Christmas might have been destroyed, middle class tax cuts, no matter what he does small minded southern whites will never appreciate you, history will no doubt, will show you were the greatest President of our time.

B Cosby

December 20th, 2010
11:23 am

keep@10:48, Obama could not be a republican, they do have standards. Although not as low as the dems, they still have standards!

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
11:23 am

ctucker@11:12
“Why does every living secretary of state support it? Why do Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn support it? Why does Bush 41 support it?”
Good question, why don’t you ask them. My guess- they know it’s a waste of paper, unless you get into the “way-back machine” to the 80’s. I’m also guessing they don’t believe this country will ever have the money to actually build and deploy a missile defense system. Not to mention the intestinal fortitude.

StJ

December 20th, 2010
11:24 am

CT went to Auburn? That explains a lot…

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
11:26 am

Cosby…Oh I know OBAMA could not be a republican. But that was not my comment. I guess you admit OSAMA could be if he wore the US Flag lapel pin.

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
11:38 am

Gm @11:23 -

It’s funny to me how many liberals on this blog act as though George W. Bush was never impugned during his presidency. He was one of the most hated president in recent memory. As pointed out earlier, it was considered patriotic to debate the administration, but now it’s unpatriotic to dissent. And for the record, there were several conservatives (myself included) who were angry with Bush for a plethora of reasons (the drawing out of Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.).

I seriously doubt that any President from 1980 onwards will be considered the greatest president ever, mainly because of the proliferation of media in which to praise or ridicule that person. Although, President who were poorly received during their administrations often get a more positive review in history.

But note that there was a complaint earlier that the Bush tax cuts were a lame duck meaure passed with Reconciliation, which was apparently a bad thing. But it was okay for Harry Reid to threaten to use reconciliation on ObamaCare.

And CT, was that just a one-time ban on the use of the “I” word? I’ve seen it used to reference both sides of the aisle recently, but I’ve not seen any bans come flying doen the pipe.

w in maietta

December 20th, 2010
11:38 am

CT, again, misses the point…we are now looking at another treaty that reduces our warheads and allows the russkies to increase theirs…hmmmm..only to a lib does that makes sense…let’s keep hurting the USA CT, you’er doing a good job of that

ctucker

December 20th, 2010
11:39 am

ronald@11:11, Perhaps “welfare abuse” is connected to the New START treaty, but I confess I’m having trouble seeing the connection. This post was about New START. Please stick to the subject at hand.

ctucker

December 20th, 2010
11:40 am

ajcs@11:10, Please see my response to ronald@11:11.

ButtHead

December 20th, 2010
11:43 am

A victory, CT you are on drugs, Obozo made a tried to make a deal that WE will dismantle a lot of our nukes but nobody else has too, is that what a dimacrat calls a deal? Maybe for everybody EXCEPT us… Just one more way Obozo shows how much he hates America..

George W

December 20th, 2010
11:43 am

CTucker….your “subjects” are so absurd that it is difficult to stay on topic.

Mike K.

December 20th, 2010
11:43 am

I haven’t followed the START treaty as closely as some other political issues, but I’ve read quite a lot of criticism of the treaty in the WSJ. Several Senators have expressed concerns that the treaty will limit America’s ability to develop and deploy missile defense shields.

Realistically, I’m not even sure why it’s in our interest to reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons. I don’t think Cynthia’s being fair to Republicans about this issue.

Also, I notice she’s not concerned about the Democrats’ decision to block consideration of the Columbia Free Trade Pact. Isn’t that in the country’s best interest?

B Cosby

December 20th, 2010
11:46 am

Keep @ 11:26. You finally got it right. OSAMA. Is the last name Bin Laden? And nope, Obama still could not be a Republican, he belongs to the group in the Swamp his Biattch Pelosi wants to run out of Washington i.e. Charlie Rangel.

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
11:48 am

If the START treaty is not passed, not only will it diminish President Obama’s standing in the United States, it will also diminish the United States standing in the world because the President has already signed for it to be implemented by the U.S.

If President Obama is handed this defeat by Republican partisan players, it will look to the world that the U.S. President and the U.S Congress are at odds with one another. United States credibility in world opinion will be lowered, and the possiblity of worldwide working together to curtail nuclear weapons may be forfeited for the near future, as a result.

Please call and write your representatives to urge the passage of this Senate Bill.

I want to wish Ms. Tucker, and all the bloggers and readers of her blog, a happy holiday season. May the Spirit of Christmas continue to bless our hearts with goodwill for all.

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
11:54 am

Mary Elizabeth@11:48
You forgot to mention: and unicorns and puppies will die.
Sorry, couldn’t help it. I really don’t know how much “diminished” we can get. We are pretty much the naive policeman on the block. Need money, protection? Sure, why not.
As for being “at odds”. That’s pretty much how it works. When all of these goons that we elect actually agree on anything, I’m heading for my bunker.

ButtHead

December 20th, 2010
11:54 am

I like that CT, stick to the subject that is too funny, anything could be it that treaty. Just like FDA regulation of vitamins in the Wall Street bail out, or any OTHER earmark the dimacrats stuck in there….

Joel Edge

December 20th, 2010
11:56 am

Mary Elizabeth@11:48
And Merry Christmas, BTW.

JKL2

December 20th, 2010
12:03 pm

Granny-

Let’s hurry up and pass more crappy bills before we get kicked out so we can say we did something. Doesn’t matter what it is (nobody read it anyway), they’ll fix it “later”.

ButtHead

December 20th, 2010
12:06 pm

There are NEVER unrelated earmarks in bills, never Obozo already told us that he would not sign any bill full of earmarks…..and Obozo never lies… NOT

JKL2

December 20th, 2010
12:06 pm

Gm- I did not hear this none sense when Bush was in office

Must have been a hell of a nap…

uga63

December 20th, 2010
12:08 pm

@Mike K — From a numbers perspective, I’d submit that it’s obviously not in our interest to reduce our stockpiles. If I could assess what exactly the Russians were giving up in exchange for a recuction, I could possibly get on board. As it stands now, the latest iteration of START appears to be all quid and no quo. However, meaningless, feel-good legislation seems to be the Zeitgeist of the current administration, so one shouldn’t be surprised.

Mike K.

December 20th, 2010
12:09 pm

@Mary Elizabeth
“If President Obama is handed this defeat by Republican partisan players, it will look to the world that the U.S. President and the U.S Congress are at odds with one another.”

They are at odds with each other. The Founders didn’t create a totalitarian monarchy; they created a representative government with divided powers. The key phrase there is “divided powers”.

By the way, I don’t hear you applying the same logic to the Columbia Free Trade Pact that Bush negotiated which Congress still hasn’t signed. Unlike START, that treaty was negotiated with an ally. Should Congress ratify that treaty to cement the USA’s world standing?

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
12:09 pm

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
11:12 am

I am NOT saying that Congress should stop working as part of the lame duck, I am saying that historically controversial pieces of legislation are not addressed at this time. Now, the tax compromise HAD to get done or the economic ramifications would have been disastrous. The only noise (although loud) around the passing of this bill was from the fringe elements on both sides of the aisle. DADT time had come, yes I supported the passage of that whole heartedly as all the debate had taken place and then some, so again I had no problem with the passage.

Regarding START, it does give me pause that Sam Nunn fully supports the ratification. I have great respect for Nunn as I always supported him as a Senator and was very proud that he was representing the great state of Georgia. I would just prefer that detailed debate take place and it is thoroughly vetted before we ratify…it is that simple

killerj

December 20th, 2010
12:10 pm

Sorry Cynthia,One Big A66 Mistake dug his own hole just like Pelosie,please go “underground sore loser”

quod erat demonstrandum

December 20th, 2010
12:11 pm

It appears that one stumbling block for Mr. Reid is the striping of powers from the Senate.

This treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that can interpret the means and terms of the treaty without approval of the Senate. The senate has the Constitutional authority regarding treaties. This would run counter tot he Constitution.

Mike K.

December 20th, 2010
12:12 pm

@uga63
That’s basically my read of the treaty as well. Maybe we really do get some advantage out of it, but it’s not like the treaty is necessary to avert WWIII. If it limits our ability to respond to 21st century threats (like Iran, N. Korea, potentially China, etc.) then it’s not in our best interest. As you indicated, Republicans shouldn’t ratify the treaty unless it’s actually in the country’s best interest. Giving liberals a warm, fuzzy feeling isn’t enough of a reason.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
12:14 pm

Get Real…Reid has offered to have 7 days of debate. Seems that should be more than enough. But I guess you are telling me that none of the staffers or Senators have bothered since April to review this or more precisely, no Republican Senators. None of them have supposedly have time to read it but they have comments about it? Again, historically, there has not been much about the Party of No that has ever happened previously. Frankly the argument rings very very hollow and ignore the fact that the Republicans have had a great deal to do with the delays.

JKL2

December 20th, 2010
12:15 pm

Mary Elizabeth- United States credibility in world opinion will be lowered, and the possiblity of worldwide working together to curtail nuclear weapons may be forfeited for the near future, as a result.

What good is the treaty if we’re the only ones that go along with it? It’s just another worthless scrap of paper at this point. Russia already knows obama won’t back up anything he says, so they’ll sign about anything at this point.

All this means is obama will get to make another “apology tour” and the chance to throw more money at people who hate us. He probably blew a load in his pants just thinking about the possibility.

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
12:18 pm

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
12:14 pm

Obama has not checked in and made it a priority until now. If after 7 days of detailed debate and the treaty is fully vetted then the chips should fall where they may.

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
12:29 pm

“Warm and fuzzy” is not the issue. The issue is whether we want to continue to work toward controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or not. We can still build our weapons regarding Iran.

If the Senate does not pass this bill – more than creating the perception the the President and the Congress do not work together – will be the worldwide perception that the U.S. President does not speak for the American people. That perception will diminish the influence of the U.S. worldwide.

Debating internal affairs in Congress is one thing – and a good thing – but being fragmented as a nation in something as important as this worldwide attempt to limit the proliferation of more nuclear weapons is lacking in vision. Those voices with vision, such as those of the first President Bush, Sen. Nunn, and the Secretaries of State who support it, should be listened to and heeded.

Good day.

Libby

December 20th, 2010
12:33 pm

We don’t have to know all about it – if you and our commie pres are for it we know it’s bad news.

The alarm clock is ringing now.WAKE-UP you fools

December 20th, 2010
12:34 pm

How much more of our country and freedoms do the liberals want to give away? Our arms is what stopped the Japanise in WW2. They have done a good job of keepimg the enemy off our lands untill the liberals open to boarders up for us to be invaded from people we let in.
Now they want to give the country away to people that have come to this country illegley and want to stay here. They want to tax us from birth to death and then take the rest away.
Why did the demorats wait untill the lameduch session to do all the things that should have been done before November? It is to make the country bow down to them and take notice of them. They act like they are for the people while tieing the hands of the republicans to make them look bad. How long it it going to take untill people of this country finds out that the liberal way of doing thing is not the only way? If things do not change soon, the next war this country will be in, will be within its own soil by it’s own people, then all we will have left is to pray that God help us all.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
12:39 pm

We don’t have to know all about it – if you and our commie pres are for it we know it’s bad news

Now there is the insanity of the Party of No that we have all come to realize is responsible so many of the problems of this country.

Obama has not checked in and made it a priority until now.

How exactly do you know that this was not being discussed? Again you seem to willingly ignore the obligations of the Senate. Is it really the claims of the right that only those matters that the President checks in on are what they should be working on? The excuses are being more and more nonsensical. First it was “this is lame duck”, “we’ve not read the signed treaty” now its “well Obama did not check in”. When do we encounter the “its a lunar eclispe week” defense?

B Cosby

December 20th, 2010
12:44 pm

Keep, your point about delaying a vote is just crying. Did the dems delay the OSAMA (in your own words) health care bill? Did Pelosi & Reid say you can read it after it passes? Hello, McFly are you there?

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
12:46 pm

Cosby…Osama and Obama are not the same but nice try on the lie. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste…trying read AND comprehension.

gator24

December 20th, 2010
12:46 pm

I think as Citizens and Voters in America we get a government which is dysfunctional because of the people we elect to congress. This Senator John Kyl wants more Nuclear Weapons than we have at present. He is doing the same as he did with Health Care which is do everything he can to stall legislation. This guy wants the country to spend more money on building new nuclear weapons, which it doesn’t have. I think you can pretty much destroy a country with 5 or more. These weapons haven’t been used since world war two, so why are they still needed since they haven’t been used in sixty five years. No wonder the country is broke

Grob Hahn

December 20th, 2010
12:48 pm

This seems to totally ignore the fact that substantial strategic arms reductions have been taking place for many years already. We are destroying not only nuclear weapons by also chemical and biological stockpiles as well. Some of the fuel in American reactors at this moment was once part of a Soviet warhead. As a race, humanity has made an amazing change in what we have all come to know as normal. Instead of building and building piles of weapons we are reducing the bulk and improving the quality. All in an effort to reduce the potential for innocent casualties. These negotiations have never stopped and this effort by republicans to buy time isn’t much of a surprise. Where nukes are involved what’s the rush? Even if we could eliminate them all, the lead time to make more is dreadfully short. We can’t un-make knowledge. Everyone who has tried has failed.
Grobbbbbbbbbbbb

B Cosby

December 20th, 2010
12:49 pm

Keep, are you sure? You referred to them as the same. The next time you are out there on the down-low, look up to see who you are with, it may be CT.

Grob Hahn

December 20th, 2010
12:49 pm

Unpatriotic???? Seriously? No way to spin this one on race I guess.
Grob

Gm

December 20th, 2010
12:49 pm

Good Grief: Americans had a right to question George W. 4500, Americans troops dead, 5,000 Americans dead in Ny under his policies.
This is the same guy who did not know gas was $4 gallon, and said the American economy was strong when it was falling apart.
This comparision with Obama is not even close

GT/MIT

December 20th, 2010
12:50 pm

ctucker@11:12

Perhaps all those prominent names you dropped as supporters of this measure, do so because they tremble at the thought of your dubbing them, “unpatriotic”.

By the way, for all of you wondering just how stockpile verification will be accomplished, I have it on good authority that we have established a direct link to wikileaks, and may even be allowed to speak directly with Julian Assange.

George W

December 20th, 2010
12:52 pm

Gm….you are RIGHT Obama is MUCH worse!

Bob Flanagan

December 20th, 2010
12:54 pm

I don’t think its a question of patriotism or racism. The Senators have taken the measure of this community organizer in the White House and decided he was over his head. There is a genuine fear Obama will screw up this treaty like he has so many things in the past two years. I trust folks like McCain and Kyl more than this gang of screw-ups in the White House. National security is too important to be left to this hopey changy thing.

quick

December 20th, 2010
12:55 pm

what a bunch of partisan hacks!

Jethro

December 20th, 2010
12:56 pm

“They are not only hyper-partisan, but they are also petty, petulant and unpatriotic, willing to jeopardize national security….”

You’ve summed up the Democrat party too. Guess it’s only petulant and unpatriotic if they disagree with your position.

Scout

December 20th, 2010
12:56 pm

somewhereinga:

From the previous thread since they have apparently cut off debate ………………

I too love my children unconditionally and that’s why I would fight to keep them from going down the physically dangerous roads of alcoholism, illegal drug usage, homosexual lifestyle, driving too fast, picking up poisonous snakes, liberalism, etc.

REALLY loving someone takes “tough love” when necessary.

By the way, it’s a shame your son didn’t know and sit at the knees of his grandfather. He might have had a stronger male role model than you.

Scout

December 20th, 2010
12:57 pm

Cynthia:

You calling Republicans unpatriotic is like someone calling UGA a poodle. LOL !!!

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
12:58 pm

Gm- Don’t you get tired of trying to blame Bush for 9/11? How did eight months of Bush policy cause 9/11, but 19 months of Obama policies has had no effect on America, and the only reason things are still bad is because of George Bush? You can’t have it both ways.

Not Chicken Little

December 20th, 2010
12:59 pm

Cynthia off her meds yet again, and her keeper obviously AWOL. She and the other mentally disordered libs/socialists refuse to realize that keeping Zero from having a second term is one of the best things the Republicans could do for the freedom and safety of our country and our Constitution.

Donald Goff

December 20th, 2010
12:59 pm

You, Cynthia, are an idiot I apologize to the idiots of the world, because calling you an idiot, gives idiots a bad name.

uga63

December 20th, 2010
12:59 pm

@Mary Elizabeth — I have to admit that that is a fairly impressive selective memory you’ve got there. All of a sudden there’s a need for the US to present a united front to the world lest we be perceived as divided? I guess I missed that bit of conventional wisdom during the last administration. Also, for your edification: we’re not discussing an NPT, we’re discussing an arms reduction treaty. That’s not exactly an inconsequential nuance. However, herein lies the “warm and fuzzy”. As far as I can tell, you’re uninformed as to the difference in the two yet you support them both with gusto simply because any combination of “nuclear” and “treaty” (while irrespective of merit) sounds good to those on the left.

Scout

December 20th, 2010
12:59 pm

P.S. to somewhereinga:

By the way, my son told someone recently that I was his best friend in life.

Reis

December 20th, 2010
1:03 pm

Tucker is one of the really stupid people in this country. She is an anti-auntie of everything White people do and anything not done by the far left left. Why the Constipation gives her space is beyond understanding.

williebkind

December 20th, 2010
1:03 pm

It is party over country and that is for sure. The progressive liberals have been doing it for decades. Now they are blaming others for the deeds and crimes against the constitution for fear of losing power–and they will. Until the democrats take back their party, I do not want the conservatives to invite the liberals into those closed smoke filled back rooms.

williebkind

December 20th, 2010
1:08 pm

The START Treaty–We will trade you fifty homosexuals for one nuclear warhead.

southern star

December 20th, 2010
1:13 pm

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman have all argued that New START actually weakens our defenses.
Speaking to the French Minister of Defense this February, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates purportedly said that “Russian democracy has disappeared” and that “the government was an oligarchy run by the security services.” Fast forward to a CNN broadcast scheduled to air tonight, where the Batman of Russia’s oligarchy, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, threatened the U.S. with a new arms race unless Senators acquiesce to President Barack Obama’s New START treaty. Putin tells CNN it would take “a very dumb nature” for the Senate not to pass the treaty and that if they don’t give in, “then we’ll have to react somehow,” including the deployment of new nuclear missile technology.

Putin’s statements come on the back of news that, in defiance of pledges made to the U.S. in the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of the 1990s, Russia moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near NATO borders earlier this spring. And according to U.S. intelligence, Iran recently received 19 BM-25 missiles from North Korea that are capable of reaching European cities. Don’t worry though, Putin also tells CNN about Iran: “But such a threat, as of now, doesn’t exist.”

Putin and President Obama believe that New START is a great deal for our national security. But not everyone agrees. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman have all argued that New START actually weakens our defenses. The Heritage Foundation has identified twelve flaws of New START, including the following:

Unacceptable Limits to Missile Defense. The Obama Administration claims that New START contains no limits or constraints on our ability to protect ourselves through missile defense. This is false. There are at least five sections that limit missile defense: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.

Inadequate Verification Regime. Edelman and Joseph warn: Those who are pushing a rush to judgment appear willing to ignore the long-held standard “trust but verify” by overlooking the monitoring gaps created by the treaty. While the on-site visits and data exchanges allowed under the treaty are valuable, New START abandons on-the-ground monitoring of Russia’s missile-manufacturing facility and permits Russia to withhold telemetry of some of its missile tests, undermining our ability to know both what is being produced and what is being developed.

Tactical Nukes Ignored. While the exact numbers are not public, Russia reportedly has a several-fold numerical advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons like the ones moved close to our NATO allies this spring. Proponents of the treaty argue that New START is essential for keeping nukes away from terrorists. There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!

Rail-Mobile ICBMs Exempted. The definitions of rail-mobile ICBMs and rail-mobile ICBM launchers established in the expired START, which applied to the associated restrictions and limitations in START, are not in New START. The Obama Administration asserts that rail-mobile ICBMs and launchers are captured by the treaty under generic definitions of deployed ICBMs. But Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee, has stated the opposite.

New START is great deal for Russia. But while Vladimir Putin can be sanguine about the threats posed to the U.S. by Iran and North Korea, U.S. Senators cannot. As Woolsey explains, rushing this treaty to appease Russia is just a bad deal for U.S. security:

A number of years negotiating arms-control agreements with the Soviets taught me that, when dealing with Russian counterparts, don’t appear eager—friendly yes, eager never. Regrettably, the Obama administration seems to have become eager for a deal in its negotiations on the follow-on treaty to the recently expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start). Hopes for a boost in efforts to “reset” relations with Russia, and for progress toward the president’s dream of a world without nuclear weapons, apparently combined to trump prudent negotiating strategy. As a result, concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty, known as New Start, as it currently stands

jesus on the down-low

December 20th, 2010
1:14 pm

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
— Samuel Johnson

Gm

December 20th, 2010
1:16 pm

George W: Nothing is worse then 4500 American troops dead, billions of dollars to Iraq war. I am sure the 2 millions of Americans that are getting their unemployement checks and feeding their families would disagree with you.
I am sure the sick kids who now are getting health care would disagree with you.
There is no difference between satan and the Rep party, Let see Obama helping people who are unemployed, feeding the sick, lets see, who does that reminds you of?

jesus on the down-low

December 20th, 2010
1:16 pm

Scout,

Your my best friend in the blogosphere….

Billyboy

December 20th, 2010
1:20 pm

Everybody wants to hurt Obama. Right on! Tell it sister! If you don’t agree with the big O then, you want to hurt him. Why are so many people against Obama. He wants to help everyone and give them what they want. Vote yes for the change we can believe in, vote for Obama. Obama is our ruler and has earned it.

jesus on the down-low

December 20th, 2010
1:22 pm

Billyboy,

Are you channeling Boy George?

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
1:25 pm

UGA63

You are refusing to see the “forest,” I am afraid.

“Proliferation” means “to grow” – so that “non-proliferation” means “not to grow.” “Arms reduction” means “to reduce arms.” There is a difference, of course, but in both cases, weapons of mass destruction would be minimized.

There is a difference in a unified America in support for an attempt at peace in this world, as in this administration, and a unified America in support for a questionable and unprovoked war (Iraq), as in the last administration.

laurence

December 20th, 2010
1:27 pm

Only our enemies (and leftist tools like CT) want START to succeed. Russia and the US are not the immediate threat to security. Rather, it is the balance each provides that ensures stability. It’s tinpot dictators of countries like Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela that pose the actual threats. This administration won’t be happy until more Americans are dead, including clueless “journalists” like you. I can’t wait until Obama is gone from public life.

HDB

December 20th, 2010
1:27 pm

williebkind
December 20th, 2010
1:03 pm

“It is party over country and that is for sure. The progressive liberals have been doing it for decades. Now they are blaming others for the deeds and crimes against the constitution for fear of losing power–and they will. Until the democrats take back their party, I do not want the conservatives to invite the liberals into those closed smoke filled back rooms.”

As if conservatives haven’t done the same things??

smokehouse

December 20th, 2010
1:30 pm

Just what the hell does Tucker know about arms control. She is a radical, black racist bigot.

Bob

December 20th, 2010
1:30 pm

This is going to pass regardless of how much McConnell doesn’t want it to. There are even moderate conservatives on board. This isn’t even a matter of if it should be passed, its when. Republicans do not want a victory for Obama and therefore are trying to extend talks past the lame duck session. That way when they control the house they can make small modifications that won’t really change anything and they can claim a small victory for the party. Trying to delay things is just a political move that is not going to work.

Pablo

December 20th, 2010
1:32 pm

When congressional democrats were screaming to the winds that we who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were “terrorists” and that the war was lost, it was explained away as “dissent, which is the highest form of patriotism”. No matter that the whole world was listening. Now, republicans raise objections to START and THEY are unpatriotic?
How do you explain then that democrats having complete control of Congress cannot ratify the treaty? How can you also explain that Congress (both republicans and democrats) cannot find the time to pass a budget (which is one of their constitutional duties), but have the time to discuss the DREAMnesty act and the repeal of DADT? If I were to offer an explanation, it would be that both parties have failed miserably at running the country…

Del,

December 20th, 2010
1:33 pm

Just because many Republicans have questions and want to fully understand this treaty, Cynthia calls them unpatriotic. There’s absolutely no good reason for ramming this threw in a Congressional lame duck session unless Obama and the Democrats have something they want to hide. If not then it can certainly wait until January.

Jim U

December 20th, 2010
1:33 pm

Anyone that would take a grain of truth from anything that Cynthia Tucker wrote is an utter and complete idiot.

That goes double for you jokers that voted for her.

Why DID you vote for her? What’s it because of her race? It certainly wasn’t for anything she possesses regarding intelligence. Because she doesn’t have any.

Take a good look at yourselves libtards, you might try to see yourselves for the morons you really are.

Gm

December 20th, 2010
1:35 pm

smokehouse: Every time a African American disagree with white conservatives they have to be a racist,
take that hood off before you speak.

jesus on the down-low

December 20th, 2010
1:35 pm

Jesus loved him some mens…

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God”.

Scout

December 20th, 2010
1:37 pm

jesus on the down-low:

Why, thank you.

JohnnyReb

December 20th, 2010
1:37 pm

Ms Tucker, your rabbid support of Obama has blinded you. There has been long-standing, well known opposition to the treaty as-is. Instead of Obama working with Republicans to agreeable revisions, his team is trying to push it through the Senate during a lame duck. Their modus operandi for getting things through Congress that stink on ice.

And instead of all the hyperbole on Republicans not wanting to give Barry a win, and not caring for security, be advised Obama had a chance to extend the old treaty for 5 years while a new treaty was approved. But instead and in typical arrogance, he chose to scuttle the old treaty for his version. Republican Senators are correct in what they are doing and it is my sincere wish they are successful. American’s security is NOT about giving Obama a win.

George W

December 20th, 2010
1:46 pm

Gm….blacks are not african americans they are black. Please get that right!

Dave

December 20th, 2010
1:47 pm

Its very simple. The GOP has some concerns about this treaty that the Dems refused to address or debate. So they will hold the treaty up temporarily to get those issues addressed. We will eventually have this treaty affirmed – hopefully with some improvements. In the mean time, extreme leftists like Cynthia will flail away thinking they have an issue they can use as a weapon.

That said, it is fun to watch Cynthia devolve into lunacy after her comrades got drubbed in the last election. The American people are sending a clear message of rejection to her beloved President. As the rejections continue to pile up, she will no doubt double down on her demagoguery in the coming months.

Hopefully, one day, the AJC will find people of good will for their editorial page.

False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR)

December 20th, 2010
1:54 pm

CT: You are once again right on target. Please continue to do what you do and keep calling these suckers out!!! The GOP is all about party (and POWER) before people. And just wait until Darryl Issa gets subpeona power next year. The GOP will absolutely implode under the weight of thier ruthless dysfunction. Thier continued efforts to discredit, disrespect and dishonor the ofice and this president will result in an easy 2012 re-election for Obama.

ronald

December 20th, 2010
1:55 pm

“That said, it is fun to watch Cynthia devolve into lunacy after her comrades got drubbed in the last election. The American people are sending a clear message of rejection to her beloved President”

Dave- The voters TRIED to send a clear message that they wanted the deficit to shrink. However, since that election, both the Republicans and Democrats alike have agreed on 2 HUGE measures that take our country in the OPPOSITE direction. Unemployment benefits should have been shortened and tax breaks should have expired. Instead, our Congress voted for the reverse. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that this is a 1-party problem. The GOP in this lame-duck session are equally responsible as their Democratic brethren when it comes to bloating our deficit.

George W

December 20th, 2010
1:56 pm

False…you are right! HAHA THAT IS WHY THE DEMS JUST GOT WHIPPED IN THE MID TERMS!

Scout

December 20th, 2010
2:03 pm

Quote of the Day:

Native guide to Ramar of the Jungle …………

“Drums talk. Say we not welome here. Leave now.”

Gm

December 20th, 2010
2:07 pm

George W: Once again another white man telling the wrong history: Blacks in America are decedent of Africa.
When most white Americans trace their history they are not from this country.
Ronald: The only problem with CT when will she learn southern whites do not care if Obama droped unemploment to 0 and save the world in their eyes he is still African America and the only place he should be is playing sports and entertaining them.
History wil show he will be the greatest President ever.

Mala Cori

December 20th, 2010
2:07 pm

Cynthia’s article today was a bore.

Time to focus on the next leader and get excited about the future. I’m liking Herman Cain. He has what Obama (and others) lack on their resumes: Military experience, corporate leadership (and success), strategic thinking (based on his experience in turning failing copmanies around), and overall executive experience. We really need to look at what skills are required for the job of a U.S. president have and match it with a person’s resume. We need to stop buying into celebrity smoke and mirrors. The two most important skills of a US president require him/her to (1) lead our military and (2) our economy. Obmama has never served in the military nor has he ever implemented a successful budget or lead a business. Issues like health care and education should be handled at the state level (like MA which has it’s own healthcare law, and NJ which is overhualing their own educational system).

kevinbgoode

December 20th, 2010
2:09 pm

Well, of course. . .the Party of NO. . .which represents the elite, isn’t interested in America beyond recognition of the country as a place to charge convenience fees at will.

George W

December 20th, 2010
2:12 pm

Gm….wrong again….I am black. I also have a white friend from South Africa. She is African American.

George W

December 20th, 2010
2:13 pm

Gm….your “greatest president” of all time will not make it past 2012.

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
2:19 pm

Gm – Thanks for not answering my questions. Shows that you are very skilled in the art of dodging.

SissyLou

December 20th, 2010
2:23 pm

Cynthia Tucker is an idiot. I wonder if she used her moronic rhetoric when the Democrats filibustered and stonewalled every single one of Bush’s initiatives?

The Educated One

December 20th, 2010
2:28 pm

This MORON in office is not about victory for the US, as his Socialist Agenda is the only concern that he will ever have. What concerns me CT is why would you or any other American blindly follow anyone that wants to raise TAXES and redistribute wealth? This guy has done ZERO in his short time in office. He will go down as one of the worst presidents along with Carter. BTW, lynnie gal, if you want to play the race card, start with your boy Barry as his comments and his affliations are all with racists people. At least the Republican Party does not want to raise everyone’s taxes and continue to spend us into more debt.

The Socialist is gone in 2012!

Enough Said!

False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR)

December 20th, 2010
2:36 pm

George W: I believe several factors tie into the midterm results, namely the current state of the economy. The first stimulus wasn’t big enough and not making a public statement in saying so was an early mistake made by this administration. According to some conservative and liberal economists, Obama’s pushing and passing of the 2nd stimulus last week should result in measurable relief over the next year or so.

Another factor of the midterm results had to do with public perception. Obama passed more significant legislation during his first 18 months than George Bush did in his entire 8 years. I’m hopeful that this administration will overhaul thier communication machine and deploy hardcore surrogates capable of knocking down the constant flow of venomous policy-related disinformation and downright lies that spew from the right.

I’m also hopeful that independants and democrats will get out and vote enmasse after they’ve had two years to witness the shenanigans of a GOP-lead House.

splink

December 20th, 2010
2:38 pm

Okay Cynthia, quit your waaawaaa, take your thumb out of your mouth and listen. Americans have noticed that on a regular basis Obama has not been for American strength or wealth in his global vision. The Repubs and the majority of Americans feels differently about it. We feel that if the world perception of us is strong, most of the naughty boys will leave us alone. Now, under Obama’s START (and, make no mistake, it IS Obama’s START), we will be weakening our defenses. Now the sad part about Repubs voting against this, and possibly being able to stop it in its’ tracks, is that it will require saving the butts of citizens like you who do not feel that America should be perceived as strong. Now sit down, shut up and let us clean up the mess you and your comrades have made. Got it?

George W

December 20th, 2010
2:40 pm

False….simply passing legislation does not mean that it is good for the American people. Obamas ideas are socialistic and scary to most Americans.

mala cori

December 20th, 2010
2:55 pm

Enter your comments here

Gary Donehoo

December 20th, 2010
2:57 pm

Girl, you are a liberal fool.

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
3:02 pm

splink @ 2:38

“Now sit down, shut up and let us clean up the mess you and your comrades have made. Got it?”

These words of yours exemplify “strength?” I don’t think so.

Gm

December 20th, 2010
3:02 pm

George W: Yes he will be the greatest of all time, saved America from the great depression.
Once again please stop using the word socialistic go visit a socialist country before you throw it out there I have.
I am sure the 2 million Americans who now have a little money from unemployment will disagree with you, this great President has done more for America in two years then Clinton, Bush combined. Continue to stay with the party of satan, I am sticking with the man who cares about middle class and sick kids who has no health care.

Def Lep

December 20th, 2010
3:06 pm

Damn Straight! We want Barry Obama’s policies to fail.

George W

December 20th, 2010
3:07 pm

Obama cares about damning American business. Giving free rides to the lower class and fooling the middle class into thinking he cares. Unemployment rates have gone up under this president. Things are getting worse. Care to look at the deficit?

TnGelding

December 20th, 2010
3:11 pm

I think they’ve misplayed their hand this time. What good are weapons you can’t use? Trust, verify and destroy.

Good Grief

December 20th, 2010
3:12 pm

But, George W, Gm told us that it’s Bush’s faul that things are so bad. He’s a liberal, so I thought we could believe him…

uga63

December 20th, 2010
3:14 pm

@Mary Elizabeth 1:25 — I can see the forest all right; I can assure you of that. Unnecessary quotation marks aside, equal support on your part for both non-proliferation and arms reduction treaties as tantamounts means whereby “weapons of mass destruction would be minimized” speaks volumes. I would posit that your fundamental viewpoint is that nuclear weapons are awful devices that should therefore be eliminated in their entirety…with the US taking the lead by way of unilateral disarmament of course. If I am wrong in my assessment, please correct me. Nevertheless, that viewpoint (or any similar variation) is absurd. Your last paragraph careens into utopian fantasy whereby the liberal believes that negotiating with aggressive and/or irrational states is prudent and pragmatic. I would love to hear your opinion as to how a singular superpower (united citizenry or not) willfully weakening herself (as in the case of the US voluntarily lessening their military capability via START) promotes peace and tranquility. That line of thinking is tantamount to thinking that a Russian counterbalance to the US’ (currently) sole superpower status is a good thing…which I suppose is…if you’re a non-US citizen.

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
3:16 pm

so I see the un-American avtivities are continuing….

shame on you people, shame, shame , shame

the people support this, the people get this and they are watching you
faux patriots and keeping notes…..

George W

December 20th, 2010
3:16 pm

Good Grief…..sure go ahead and believe GM. hahah

TnGelding

December 20th, 2010
3:17 pm

With this latest stimulus package happy days are indeed here again. We’ll know in a few years if it was worth it. I’d rather just go ahead and bite the bullet now.

You naysayers need to start watching C-NBC instead of listening to Rush. It is rather depressing to see someone different from you excel, tho, isn’t it? And with liberal policies, yet!

George W

December 20th, 2010
3:19 pm

TnGelding…..you are right spend spend spend with no budget in sight!

George W

December 20th, 2010
3:20 pm

TnGelding….hmmmm what other class of Americans seems to always spend without having budgets.

Democrats – party of the poor
Repubs – party of the rich

williebkind

December 20th, 2010
3:21 pm

Why should not socialist want to treaty up with socialists. That makes perfect sense but it is not for me. Why should we agree to make ourselves less so others can equal us. Now that is liberal philosophy!

TnGelding

December 20th, 2010
3:25 pm

We libs have our share of rich, and our share of pols that support the rich. The GOP didn’t have the guts to pay for the bigger government it gave us; Homeland Security, Medicare Part D. Iraq war, Afghanistan war. How many trillions of deficit spending is that over 10 years?

Gm

December 20th, 2010
3:29 pm

George W, Ever heard of Corporate welfare:
So when business asked for bail out, would that not be corporate welfare? Does that money come from the tax payers.
This is whats wrong with you hypocrites Rep you can not call it what it is.
Once again tell the 2 million families who will be getting unemployment because of job lay off they dont need it, this is why I say this is the pary of satan.

George W

December 20th, 2010
3:32 pm

Gm….you mean the people who think 99 weeks of unemployment is not enough? Atleast Satan has a job….I cant say as much for these scumbags.

HDB

December 20th, 2010
3:39 pm

The Educated One
December 20th, 2010
2:28 pm

” At least the Republican Party does not want to raise everyone’s taxes and continue to spend us into more debt.”

Better review that idiom:

1) Reagan passed a tax INCREASE in 1982; quadrupled the deficit in his first term
2) GHWB – “Read my lips…no new taxes……and then another tax increase”
3) GWB – Scheduled tax INCREASE in January 2011; spending off-the-books for two wars; unfunded mandates for NCLB and Medicare Part D……..

It’s the Republican Party that PUT this nation in the debt that it’s in!!

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
3:39 pm

Yeah, let’s take down our missle defense system, do away with our missles, bombs, military and trust Russia! Nikita Kruschev once said they would bury America without firing a shot! I guess he knew the mentality and thinking of all Dimocrats and he could count on them electing a looser like Obozo and destroying America!

Mike R

December 20th, 2010
3:42 pm

Cynthia I would love to negotiate a deal with you. You just lay down and agree to anything. In a world that listens only to power I’m not thinking it’s the best time to deal with Russia on nuclear arms. They are one of the last governments I would trust. Their in bed with Iran and I wouldn’t trust Putin or his sidekick Medvedev as far as I can spit. We all know who runs that country, Putin, who happens to be ex-KGB. I’m happy Cynthia isn’t in the White House!!

And this is getting even more hilarious when we are calling Republicans unpatriotic. That’s the first time I’ve heard that one, still can’t stop laughing…

HDB

December 20th, 2010
3:47 pm

Get Real
December 20th, 2010
3:39 pm

“Yeah, let’s take down our missle defense system, do away with our missles, bombs, military and trust Russia! Nikita Kruschev once said they would bury America without firing a shot! I guess he knew the mentality and thinking of all Dimocrats and he could count on them electing a looser like Obozo and destroying America!”

If you actually attempted to understand what Khrushchev was stating……he was intending to force the US to divert so much capital into defense spending that it would cause economic collapse. Although Reagan’s spending caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, it also planted the seeds for this nation’s economic problems. If you look at THAT aspect…. Khrushchev almost succeeded……he began the journey that we as a nation must find a way to extricate itself from!! If you noted the INCREASE in defense spending under REPUBLICANS…….you can see where the destruction of America can generate itself!! Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex…and its main purpose is to keep feeding the arms monster!!

granny godzilla

December 20th, 2010
3:48 pm

We are not callin ALL republicans unpatriotic….just the ones that are.

you know the ones, the ones for whom the security of our nation is
soooooo much less important than a GOP victory.

They are indeed – unpatriotic.

Mike R

December 20th, 2010
3:50 pm

HDB

December 20th, 2010
3:47 pm

Defense spending has very little to do with the deficit so your all wrong on that one…

Tom Middleton

December 20th, 2010
3:50 pm

Of course START will keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists, and of course there are Republicans opposing it for selfish political gain. Didn’t Mitch McConnell already tell us he wants a Republican president in 2012, any way he can get him?

Let’s hope they both are reveling in the White House when Al Qaeda lights up Washington with a loose nuke, instead of off negotiating a new treaty for which they can take the credit!

HDB

December 20th, 2010
3:51 pm

George W
December 20th, 2010
3:20 pm

“TnGelding….hmmmm what other class of Americans seems to always spend without having budgets.

Democrats – party of the poor
Repubs – party of the rich”

Can we agree that neither side budgets well…….

Democrats — party of the poor: Poor people don’t have enough money to budget….just barely subsisting

Republicans – party of the rich: Rich people have so MUCH money that they don’t HAVE to budget!!

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
3:53 pm

uga63 @ 3:14 p.m.

Your remarks are full of misconceptions and sweeping generalities about how I think regarding nuclear weapons or the interaction of the U.S. with other world powers.

Here are my words on Dec. 17, 1:25 p.m., from Jay Bookman’s blog. My words, below, better describe my thought processes regarding how world peace might better be pursued. The other specifics of your questions to me, I do not care to address this afternoon. I simply will say, however, that I trust the evolved consciousness of President Obama pragmatically to seek peace – to the extent that his lost world might find a way to redeem itself.

“Read Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech again, in full, or the speech he made in Cairo just before the young people in Iran rebelled at their having to live in an undemocratic government, when the beautiful young woman, Neda, was killed on the streets of Iran.

Obama’s ideas are “radical” in the best sense because they change the consciousness of the world for the better. Jesus Christ was “radical” in this sense though He was hardly political. (And no, I am not comparing Obama to Christ – for some readers out there.) However, I am saying that a radical changer does not have to be an overt activist. Again, the former Prime Minister of England, Gordon Brown, was highly impressed by Obama and called him “a great president with a great heart.” Gordon Brown got to know Obama at the 2009 G-20 conference with world leaders. Obama was one of those world leaders. His style, concern for all others at that conference, and intellect were as impacting on the world and its change, as marching in the streets would have been 50 years ago. His is a subtle mind and a finely-tuned mind, as I have said here before. Even with those traits, the forceful, Bill O’Reilly, said of Obama that he (I paraphrase) had a core of steel. This was after O’Reilly interviewed Obama.

If the world is to change from radically “lurching from crisis to crisis” to a more sane approach to a global mindset reality, in common with globalization, it is good that we have the caliber of mind and style of Obama’s which may be able – through working with world leaders in other G-20 forums – to shift the “reality” of interaction on this globe to a kinder and more stable approach. One, today, must learn to work with others for common goals. The more on board, the more the exceptions, like Ahmadinejah, will be left to the minorities of how to work with others, and will fade out in influence, hopefully, in this paradigm shift of a new world approach to peace and mutual financial interests on Earth through the majority of world leaders following someone like Obama’s more just lead.”

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
3:54 pm

(4) Obozo, Pelosi and Reid rammed Obozocare down America’s throats and futher increased the deficit!

(5) Cash for clunkers – increase in deficit

(6) You might want to check dificit figures before and after Obozo! Think you will find he has added much more to the dificit, unemployment, driven down the economy, housing market, foreclosures, etc., etc. while taking lavish vacations, golf outings and hobnobbing with celebraties!

HDB

December 20th, 2010
3:55 pm

Mike R
December 20th, 2010
3:50 pm

Actually, defense spending DOES have a good deal to do with deficit spending!! Having been in procurement, the cost overruns on certain military equipment, the overpricing of vendors on military contracts: those appropriations INCREASE on the average of 7% a year!! When you add defense appropriations to domestic spending…it ALL adds up!! The shortfall has to be made up somehow!!

james

December 20th, 2010
3:55 pm

Always interesting to read the Reagan bashers. He had us run the USSR into bankruptcy and avoid ww111 by outspending them. A few presidents since could have learned a listen on the full financial and human cost of ward. I was channel surfing over the weekend and big ol’ michael moore and melissa etheridge still cry about the wall coming down. What president was that? Was that jimmy? It wasn’t jimmy was it- he is still trying to free those darn hostages.

williebkind

December 20th, 2010
3:57 pm

We are going to get nuked someday! The liberals have waged war on America on the home front and in other countries. The damage is done. We can only have the assurance that we will not go out alone.

HDB

December 20th, 2010
3:57 pm

Mary Elizabeth
December 20th, 2010
3:53 pm

Many here have also forgotten that there was a President who stated as part of his mission was the total eradication of all nuclear weapons; his name: RONALD WILSON REAGAN!!

Is Obama attempting to move forward on Reagan’s dream??? Hmmmmm…………………………

williebkind

December 20th, 2010
3:58 pm

HDB

December 20th, 2010
3:55pm
The constitution demands we have a Navy. That is defense.

Mike R

December 20th, 2010
3:59 pm

MARY ELIZABETH

December 20th, 2010
3:53 pm

Can you explain better what Obama has done to create peace in the world? From what I gather he is handling the Middle East in the same fashion as Bush. The war now has shifted to Afghanistan where Obama has sent more and more troops over the last year or so. Can you be specific on how Obama has worked closer with world leaders to promote peace?? Our relationship with other countries hasn’t changed in any way since Bush left besides maybe being worse with a few. You seem like an Obama lover and you see things that really aren’t happenning.

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
4:00 pm

Somehow, I don’t remember any Dimocratic President that had balls in my generation! Oh, and Bill Clinton don’t count because someone else had his balls!

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
4:01 pm

Mike R, Obozo has worked very closely with other world leaders by bowing to them and kissing their a$$!

HDB

December 20th, 2010
4:03 pm

williebkind
December 20th, 2010
3:58 pm

I know that….but the question is the COST of defense!!Compare the cost of one B-2 versus one Tomahawk….which can do the greatest damage cheaper??? How about $600 for a $7.95 toilet seat?? How about $1200 for a HP computer that one can buy for $625 from Best Buy!! It all adds up!!

james

December 20th, 2010
4:05 pm

HDB- exactly the point that is missed with “increased” taxes. We have a first class military (obviously) but our accounting would make enron accounting look good. We have become victims of our own success.

Really last word

December 20th, 2010
4:08 pm

Treaties aren’t worth the paper they are written on. As far CT’s opinion . . neither is it worth the paper it is written on.

short-bus christian

December 20th, 2010
4:12 pm

reagan was gay.

Gm

December 20th, 2010
4:14 pm

Get Real: Its call customs, when they come to our country they have to shake the President hand wich is not their custom, when you lived in hicks all your life you would not understand that.
I know seeing class and grace comming from a African American is hard for some you bigots and hicks in Georgia all of us dont play football and basketball and sing and dance for you.

Bob

December 20th, 2010
4:17 pm

This treaty is advocated by George H.W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, and many other republicans with extensive foreign policy experience. It has full support from all of our current military leaders. It has full support from our NATO allies. It has been publicly available for review since April and was submitted to the Senate for ratification in May, yet a few republican leaders think they need to look at it a little more. Politics are a joke in our country.

Atlas shrugging

December 20th, 2010
4:20 pm

C T you and BOOOOOkman should stick to subjects you actually know something about, oh wait, that would be nothing. Is it any wonder no one buys your liberal rag.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:20 pm

Liberals are so funny…they don’t trust capitalists, but they do trust Soviet politicians…

Dave Bronx

December 20th, 2010
4:22 pm

The Republicans owned the Capital and the Whitehouse for 8 years called us unpatriotic for not going along with them on the Iraq and Aghan wars not to mention the big tax give aways to their rich friends.

The GOP and conservatives only see patriotism through their own eyes and everyone else is wrong (including the hack who wrote this article) even though they refuse to help 911 first responders or returning vets, they USED these people politically but when it comes time to help them for having sacrificed their health and lives the Republicans just don’t give a damn.

The Republicans only care about card carrying NRA members and members of the rich elite class who can pay to get them re-elected. The rest of us, veterans and tax paying citizens they’ve been trying to marginalize us since the Royal Reagan couple took office.

I honestly don’t understand what’s wrong with the Republicans. Compassionate Conservatism was the biggest lie and joke they ever told along with the lies to get us into the Iraq war.

We won’t forget their selfishness and greed come 2012, of course they have the advantage of being owned by FOX News, Murdoch and any lobbyist that will enrich their lives and now thanks to Bush STACKING the supreme court it’s going to be an uphill battle but eventually American citizens are going to see the GOP for the true colors or one would hope.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:22 pm

Liberals are so funny…WalMart must be stopped ta all cost, but the Soviet nuclear missile threat is really no biggie…

smelly

December 20th, 2010
4:22 pm

“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

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:24 pm

Hey Dave Bronx…as of Friday, that’s the Obama/Pelosi/Reid big tax giveaway to the rich.

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
4:24 pm

HDB @ 3:57

The idea of curtailing nuclear weapons is not limited to Reagan or Obama, nor is it limited to Republican thought or Democratic thought. We arbitrarily set up polarizations, or “enemies,” where none need exist.

Mike R @ 3:59 p.m.

Yes, the shift has been made to Afghanistan from Iraq, and in Afghanistan, although our military is still there in order to keep Al Qaeda from regaining a stronghold, from Pakistan back to
Afghanistan, once again, President Obama has said that he does not plan to be in Afghanistan for years. He plans to bring home some troops as of July, 2011, if some progress has been made in strengthening Afghans. Even more troop withdrawal is planned for the months thereafter.
Diplomats throughout the world have noticed a change in style from President Bush to President Obama from a style that says,”You are with us or against us” to one that is trying to build a long- ranged communication pattern with other leaders that will allow for complex dialogue involving areas of mutual interests and common goals – financial as well as others. Style in this case is extremely important for communication to continue with positive impact, as Benjamin Franklin knew so well when he spent years building rapport with France to our benefit when France helped us, in the final hours, of the American Revolution defeat the British.

I must go now to get my final Christmas cards in the mail.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:25 pm

Liberals are so funny…they call George W. Bush “Hitler” or “the world’s biggest terrorist” but feign outrage when anyone calls Obama un-patriotic.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:28 pm

Mary Elizabeth…I don’t know whether to laugh at you, or feel sorry for you. Maybe I’ll just do both.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:31 pm

Democrats, along with their willing accomplices/mouthpieces in the mainstream media, have been campaigning against “The Bush Tax Cuts” for going on 8 years now. Now that Obama/Pelosi/Reid have used their Democrat majorities in both houses to extend this tax policy for two additional years, they have taken ownership of this exact same policy. What will happen in the 2012 campaign season? Democrats will campaign against………..themselves? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
4:31 pm

Harry Callahan @ 4:28 p.m.

Your words speak for you, as my words speak for me. I can say, unequivocally, that I do feel sorry for you.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:33 pm

Mary Elizabeth…just so you know, EVERYBODY with an IQ north of 75 reads what you write, and laughs.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:34 pm

…but don’t forget your Christmas card for AmSoc, er I mean AmVet…

james

December 20th, 2010
4:40 pm

received my annual exorbitantly wrong and high water bill- on hold now for 45 minutes which I know will end in them simply hanging up and going home.

I look forward to the gov’t getting more involved in my life.

Keyser Soze

December 20th, 2010
4:40 pm

Is this a reprint from The Onion? A hyper-partisan criticizing the other side for being hyper-partisan. Cynthia, history did not begin the day you got your job. There has never been a time, from 1789 until now, when partisans ON BOTH SIDES have not been “hyper-partisan, petty, petulant and unpatriotic” and willing to jeopardize ANYTHING to hurt the other side! You really think it was otherwise when Bush and Clinton were president? Get a clue!

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
4:42 pm

Harry Callahan @ 4:33 and 4:34

As I said, your words speak for you. They do not speak for “EVERYBODY,” as you so blatantly would wish. Your sad spirit is obvious and is destructive – not only to others but to yourself.

ATL Guy

December 20th, 2010
4:43 pm

John McCain and Lindsey Graham had promised a vote on START if they White House would prevent Dont Ask Dont Tell from going forward. The White House turned down the deal and now the Republicans are determined to kill it no matter what. There is no philosophical differences between the parties on this Treaty. It just boils down to vindictiveness and pettiness on the part of the Republicans. They put party before country on this vote. Just like they did with the 9/11 Bill they only want to deny Obama any victories.

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 20th, 2010
4:47 pm

“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.”
——————–

You lie. Many Republicans are opposed for valid, relevant reasons. One is that the treaty puts new limits on anti-missile defense. Seems the Idiot Messiah wants to give away the store.

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:48 pm

For a generation, Democrats have led their core constituency of can’t-think-for-themselves Dependocrats to believe that low taxes cause recession and high taxes give us prosperity. But now, with his presidency, his relevance, and indeed his legacy on the line, Obama has been forced to admit that raising taxes would cause a double-dip recession, and lowering taxes, ALL taxes, including payroll taxes, will stimuate the economy and help create jobs. What will REALLY be amusing, though, will be watching the spinmeisters like Bookman and Tucker come 2012, telling the willing liberal sheep that yes, low taxes were bad under Republicans, but then low taxes were good when Obama/Pelosi/Reid lowered them, but now will be bad again and we MUST re-elect Obama to stop these Republican giveaways to the rich. And the willing liberal sheeple on the left will go “Baa baa baa” right on down to the polls to vote for Obaam again…

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:49 pm

Thank you Mary Elizabeth…you run along back to the corral now, OK?

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
4:53 pm

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
12:39 pm

Been out running errands since my last post. After reading your response I would suggest you take a couple of deep breaths, perhaps take some meds and get off your soap box. If the treaty is in the best interest of the USA then it should be passed. If the Republicans stomewall when it is legitimate then that would be a major problem, but spare me the party of NO response as a catch all for everything.

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
4:55 pm

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
4:01 pm

Name Jacker, please do not speak for me….

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

December 20th, 2010
4:55 pm

Reagan broke the back of the Soviet Union by not negotiating missile defense with them at Reykjavik, so now obozo and his fellow socialist wannabes scurry about trying to rebuild our former enemies.

Does this surprise anyone?

And increasing the budget of a federal department is not the same as modernizing the US nuclear arsenal, though I suspect Queen Pinko knows this and is just talking down to her dullard liberal audience, who were like yeah, duh when they first read this trollop.

Just sayin…

Harry Callahan

December 20th, 2010
4:57 pm

When the Republicans held the White House, the Senate, and the House, weren’t Democrats the party of NO?

When conservatives try to speak at our colleges and universities, and they get shouted down by liberal extremists who would deny them their constitutional right to speak, aren’t THEY the party of NO?

simplythetruth

December 20th, 2010
4:57 pm

To enter into a START Treaty is nothing more than window dressing. One would have to make the assumption that all parties would behave responsibly and honorably. That lets both the U.S. and Russia have an automatic disqualification. Both parties cannot truthfully say that they trust each other. For example, since the breakup of the former Soviet Union, many reports, whether factual or not have been made questioning the full accountability of Russian nuclear materials and weaponry.
You don’t have a reasonable way of confirming the true compliance of either party. I don’t even trust our current government since they don’t even obey our own existing laws when it comes to our borders.Now, on top of just that, the current administration wants to “regulate” the internet and ram-through the “Fairness Doctrine”. When a government seeks to regulate and define what its citizens can view as “truth”, then an atmosphere condusive to totalitarianism can’t be far off.

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
5:05 pm

Get Real

December 20th, 2010
3:39 pm

Get another name pal, don’t steal mine

slade

December 20th, 2010
5:08 pm

The greatest generation has turned into a bunch of greedy old farts, the boomers are crying in their soon to be repossessed beemers, time for the gen x to show ‘em how it’s done.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

December 20th, 2010
5:11 pm

She Must Be a Nolabelist

* “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 -Taranto, WSJ

Cult of personality

December 20th, 2010
5:11 pm

Obama can do no wrong. Cynthia for once forgot to call the republicans racists. She must be losing her touch.

james

December 20th, 2010
5:14 pm

I report- one change “former enemies”- at least wouldn’t put them into the friendly bucket for a holiday ham

Thulsa Doom

December 20th, 2010
5:15 pm

Why would anybody in their right mind trust the community organizer to sign a nuclear arms treaty that would keep us safe? What on earth does a community organizer know about nuclear arms treaties. With our luck we will have about the same success in nuke arms treats with this incompetent as we do with his handling of the economy- which aint too good now is it? Change you can believe in- what a joke this guy is.

jeff

December 20th, 2010
5:26 pm

it’s clear that left and right have completely different views, so why don’t the far right religious zealots just split off and –Oh yeah, they tried that – AND LOST THE WAR. Because they were, essentially, too stupid to beat THE NORTH. So shut up and listen to your betters, fools. PSL Imagine what the south could have been – no scientists, no highways, no nuclear power, no computers, none of the government money from NY and CA that southern states rely on for all those non-productive government related jobs they have, just fools and their right wing ramblings like you see in most of these posts.

Honest Broker

December 20th, 2010
5:35 pm

From today’s Wall Street Journal Best of the Web:

She Must Be a Nolabelist

“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

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
5:35 pm

The ignorant born again redneck blogging brigade is out in full force. Bunch of know nothing chicken hawks.

Alfred Hussein Neuman

December 20th, 2010
5:36 pm

Cynthia the race baiter has spoken. Remeber when she wrote this? “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

Only democrats, especially black ones, can question a person;s patriotism.

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
5:37 pm

i report and honest broker should get a room.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
5:38 pm

Ahhh…the new talking points must have just been issued to the wingnuts.

mr. sensitive

December 20th, 2010
5:46 pm

I thought there was something wrong when the Republicans accused Obama of being unpatriotic. Now, the author accuses the Republicans of being unpatriotic. Is Cynthia Tucker really a closet Republican?

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
5:53 pm

do tell us…what exactly was the commentary about on 10.26.2008 that meant McCain/Palin accused Obama as being unpatroitic….. a label flag or something other stupid “litmus” test.

Sorry, definitely not the same as holding up a vote on START because you want a political defeat. That is unpatriotic when it comes to the safety of the country. Let’s have a straight up and down vote.

Mary Elizabeth

December 20th, 2010
5:56 pm

Harry Callahan 4:49 p.m.

Just know that your words have no credence with me.

Anyone as small-minded and mean-spirited as you needs to be called out for the bully that you are.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

December 20th, 2010
5:58 pm

A Web site dedicated to “Full Marriage Equality” calls on supporters of the DADT repeal to consider

the men and women who risked their lives (and those who gave them) and endured so many things in service to their country, who haven’t been free to be who they really are and share their lives openly with the person or persons they love. Shouldn’t someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves another man, or his long lost sister?

Aahhh, yes, and don’t forget farm animals.

ew

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
5:59 pm

bush lied, people died.

Jack

December 20th, 2010
6:06 pm

These Republicans are beneath contempt…playing politics with our national security…..and include both of our Senators……….HELP!

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
6:10 pm

you can lead a conservative to knowledge, but you can’t make them think.

Bill Campbell

December 20th, 2010
6:48 pm

Obama cares more for Muslims than American Christians!

oldguy (certified narrowminded base)

December 20th, 2010
6:58 pm

So Obomba says the treaty will not prevent a missle defense shield? OMG the oracle has spoken!!!! All truth is now revealed!!! Christmas is here and the “chosen one” has orated!!!
Wait a minute….. Isn’t this the same “chosen one” who was going to keep unemployment under 8%??? close Gismo??? Publish all bills in Congress 3 days before all votes??? Etc….etc….etc…
Why should anyone DARE to doubt his oracle!!!
Boy CT when it comes to propaganda your are the apex!!! Joeph Stalin had nothing on you!
BTW ALL other START Treaties omited a prohibitation on Missle defense

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
7:02 pm

muslims rule, christians drool

Pete brown

December 20th, 2010
7:06 pm

What a hypocrite Ms. Tucker!

■”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

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
7:08 pm

oldguy….sure he’s been refudiated…so let’s go back to Mission Accomplished! W was so great at speaking the truth.

Your depends are all wet.

Keep up the good fight!

December 20th, 2010
7:09 pm

No matter how many times you post the talking points issued by your overlords it does not prove that you comprehend the point made.

oldguy (certified narrowminded base)

December 20th, 2010
7:16 pm

Just for clarification: Mission Accomplished referred to the removal of a genocidic dictator not the turning of a country and a people who have been ruled by despots for thousands of years to a democracy….
And yes,I wouldn’t believe Obomba if he were to say the sun will rise tomorrow!!

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

December 20th, 2010
7:29 pm

Do you HONESTLY thing the rogue nations in the USSR will honor this when push comes to shove. Please tell me that you are NOT that dense.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

December 20th, 2010
7:30 pm

Keep up the good fight! – Ask santa for a brain this CHRiSTmas.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

December 20th, 2010
7:33 pm

captain underpants – You may want to check your underpants because they are full of SH*T

IRON CHEF Bama Rabbit

December 20th, 2010
7:40 pm

The Clinton administration appeased North Korea with hundreds of millions of dollars in food, oil, and even a nuclear reactor to discontinue their atomic weapons program. The Koreans lied and detonated their own bomb a few months later.

Democrats are very talented when it comes to negotiating treaties with the commies.

Manuel Rivera

December 20th, 2010
7:43 pm

Cuando Obama se va a liberar a los santos encarcelados en Guantánamo?

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
7:46 pm

i nott 2 smart

IRON CHEF Bama Rabbit

December 20th, 2010
7:48 pm

The special ingredient is bananas.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

December 20th, 2010
8:04 pm

Iron Chef…sure make up your own “facts”. North Korea had a nuclear bomb during the Clinton admin? Prove it cause its a lie.

Liar….Did the mythical Santa bring you your brain for the holiday seasons? I think the elves sent you a defective unit.

Treasure of Sierra Madre

December 20th, 2010
8:07 pm

CT didn’t you do the START treaty thing a couple of weeks ago? I can’t think of any new rants on this subject. Please get back to the usual provocative stuff. Thanks.

Question

December 20th, 2010
8:21 pm

All the more reason to defund NPR — NPR’s Nina Totenberg Apologizes For Saying “Christmas”

old-timer

December 20th, 2010
8:23 pm

I am patriotic, very well educated, and against the start treaty. I do not believe I am alone.

oldguy (certified narrowminded base)

December 20th, 2010
8:26 pm

Congress will pass the start treaty…..The COLLECTIVE is too dumb not to…..
We’ll follow our historical pattern (as prior to WWII) ignoring reality and then be really suprised when Pearl Harbor happens!!!

joseph eastman

December 20th, 2010
8:28 pm

Bravo! brilliant! Thank you standing against RIch Lowery on the NewsHour!

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
9:08 pm

christianity is a disease, science provides the cure

captain underpants

December 20th, 2010
9:16 pm

mmmm,

i nominate you for king of the confederacy of tea-party dunces…

tony

December 20th, 2010
9:46 pm

I truly admire the atheist- it takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe all of “this” evolved from a few cells. a whole lot of faith.

Zoey

December 20th, 2010
9:47 pm

Tucker,
You should never complain again about being called unpatriotic. Your rhetoric knows no limits. Don’t complain about a lack of civility in our country. You are part of the problem.

T-Town

December 20th, 2010
10:15 pm

Reuters: “Waste in U.S. Afghan aid seen at billions of dollars”

How unpatriotic!

JJ

December 20th, 2010
10:46 pm

In case no one has pointed this out yet, is it not fair now to call Ms. Tucker a Rovian hypocrite? My God.

“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

ODDOWL

December 21st, 2010
12:10 am

@ ZeKe….. You’re a misinformed, brainwashed, big house Middle classer who vote Tea Party Republican. We Patriotic Liberal Democrats are the glue that hold America together and prevent you Bush/Cheney anti Americans from completely destroying our Country. Question; Why did the Bush/Cheney Regime sat on the information they received from the Clinton Admin. about an imminent attack on America by Bin Larden and Al-qaeda involving air planes ??? Bush and Cheney’s procrastination allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to occur. Senators Graham and McCain are nothing more than scrooge of Christmas past. They’re a couple of whiny sissies who’re apparently having a hissy fit because the patriotic and ambitious Senate Leader Harry Reid is forcing them to do some work and earn that generous salary they receive. Bah-Humbug !!!

TrishaDishaWarEagle

December 21st, 2010
3:43 am

A: HO HO HO

Q: What does obama call his wife and daughters.

I kill me:) Now, you idiots on the left(redundant, I know) do realize that the US gives up more than the Soviets(yes, putin is a stalinist at heart) under this treaty, right? Oh, thats right, you believe in altrusim and that the US is evil and SHOULD give up more..

May all leftists perish in a holiday house fire sparked by real candles to save electricity..

And a happy hanukah to the lawyers!!

Gary Wagner

December 21st, 2010
7:50 am

You liberal “journalist” pigs are worse than pathetic. Your hate-filled diatribes are the only thing “unpatriotic” happening in this country today.

Shut up and go home, you Obamazombie fool.

PerryM

December 21st, 2010
8:02 am

How can you tell when Obama is lying?

His Teleprompter is turned on…..

You’re a flaming Liberal and use the word “unpatriotic” – what a laugh.

You Libs are reduced to hiding behind patriotism – you the folks who wouldn’t know patriotism if the ACLU bit you.

I remember when Obama refused to wear a label pin US flag and refused to place his hand over his heart when our anthem played – any you’re going to lecture us about patriotism?

You’re pathetic Cynthia; what, the charge of racism doesn’t work any longer?

Give me a break……….

Brett

December 21st, 2010
8:05 am

God, you have quite skillfully mastered the art of sophistry — congratulations Cynth! Keep stoking the native fires.

Jeff Clement

December 21st, 2010
8:12 am

Citing Ronald Reagan when it’s convenient, without context is pretty weak. Ms. Tuck is hyper-partisan, petulant and petty. Reagan, if you will recall, was willing to walk away from a Russian offer on nuclear arms and wait for a better deal. He was pilloried by the press, but he went on to get a better deal.

I really doubt Ms. Tucker, or almost anyone chiming in on either side, have an understanding of what is in the treaty, much less actually read it. The fact is, everyone reacts in a partisan way on almost everything and the facts don’t matter, they just get in the way for most people.

bluefish

December 21st, 2010
8:28 am

Only in America can someone have a “column” and opine about things they know nothing about. Ms Tucker, stick to accusing people of racism, give us back something to chuckle about.

HenryHayne

December 21st, 2010
8:33 am

I am not against the Start Treaty. I am not for it either. I think that a full discussion, followed by some time to think about it is appropriate for the Senate. Although the Administration has been working on the Treaty for some time, the Senate hasn’t. Furthermore, a new Senate has been elected. I do not like any lame duck session, and this is a binding international agreement. Wait for next year.

Jim

December 21st, 2010
8:33 am

Cynthia Tucker believes that everyone whose opinion doesn’t conform to hers is racist, evil, unpatriotic and/or stupid.

Moonshado

December 21st, 2010
8:43 am

Just wanted to point out you forgot to call us racist bigots, homophobes and fascist pigs. I suppose you are saving those for your next unbiased article

Ben

December 21st, 2010
8:51 am

If you disagree with someone or a group of people, you should simply point out why you believe that there ideas are wrong, not engage in name-calling. People are allowed to oppose ideas, even if Condoleeza Rice supports them.

Falcon78 in Northern Virginia

December 21st, 2010
9:20 am

Cynthia Tucker has zero, zip, nada credibility and expertise to be writing on the pros and cons of the New START treaty. She has no resume, no experience, no anything to be writing on national security and defense issues and the specifics of those policies. Yet, she does manage to tie it to the politics, and the race politics of being against Obama. Just like the Bud Light commericial–”How is it that you are not married?”, they should ask Ms Tucker, “How is it that you still have a job as a columnist for a major city (albeit Atlanta) newspaper?”

Bill Carson

December 21st, 2010
9:22 am

This woman is the female version of Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. She is extremely race based. Whatever Obama wants, she wants. Race comes first with her and Robinson. You’ll never see her disagree with Obama on anything.

Armykungfu

December 21st, 2010
9:26 am

So the Democrats who wanted us to loose the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, who want the country to be overun by citisens of other countries are patriots and the Republicans who don’t agree with a treaty aren’t? Are you kidding?

Ron

December 21st, 2010
9:29 am

I am embarrassed to live in a state with trash like the AJC, second only to the New York Times in its bias and ignorance.

JW

December 21st, 2010
9:39 am

AJCS:

“what the lame stream media, like cynthia, is not reporting are the nuclear experts not only in this country but in our allies’ countries that are warning against this bill.”

I’ll give you Richard Perle (who resigned from the Reagan Administration because of his opposition to the way the INF Treaty was panning out) and I’ll even stretch to John Bolton, even though he was never really involved in nuclear policy to any great degree. Just give me the names of two more “experts” who oppose ratification of New Start. I have a PhD in International Relations and I’m a former Air Force Officer. I have friends who are career military officers, FSOs and others who work in places like the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Missile Defense Agency. NOT ONE OF THEM OPPOSES RATIFICATION OF THIS TREATY.

“It offers no way to verify.”
False. It reintroduces verification measures after those under START lapsed with the Treat. Verification was never negotiated under GW Bush’s Moscow Treaty, which is why we currently have no means of verification beyond “national technical means”. Maybe the measures of New START aren’t as robust as START, but they provide something, and that something can be improved on at a later date as mutual confidence between the US and Russia is restored through measures such as this.

JW

December 21st, 2010
9:48 am

Falcon 78

“Citing Ronald Reagan when it’s convenient, without context is pretty weak. Ms. Tuck is hyper-partisan, petulant and petty. Reagan, if you will recall, was willing to walk away from a Russian offer on nuclear arms and wait for a better deal. He was pilloried by the press, but he went on to get a better deal.”

What this neglects to mention is the role of Gorbachev and Soviet Politics played in this. Gorbachev was in a much weaker political position than Medvedev and Putin are right now. The Soviet economy had been crumbling for over a decade, the USSR had to find ways of cutting defense spending. What’s more, Gorbachev had nailed his colors to the mast and had to be able to show that his reforms and engagement could yield positive results.

On the other hand, Putin and Medvedev would have absolutely nothing to lose if New START isn’t ratified. They can just use American obfuscation as an excuse to keep riding the same nationalist and anti-democratic wave they’ve been using since 2000 to maintain power.

chris_zzz

December 21st, 2010
9:48 am

It’s a bit ironic that Ms. Tucker complains about partisanship then calls Republicans “unpatriotic.” I agree that the treaty should be ratified, but I don’t agree with the name-calling mentality, especially when it entails vilifying entire groups of people.

[...] National Affairs FCC Internet Grab a Christmas Nightmare – Rep. Marsha Blackburn, RCP Unpatriotic Resistance to New START – Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta JC Good Riddance to the 111th Congress – Frank Donatelli, [...]

Joelinin

December 21st, 2010
9:59 am

You know, it’s funny. I thought dissent was patriotic. I thought the Democrats cried foul over being called “unpatriotic” for opposing the Iraq war (even though they never were). Silly me, I always understood the Republicans to be promoters of smear campaigns, hate, and bully tactics. Perhaps a mirror would be useful.

jaye mallott

December 21st, 2010
10:01 am

A traitorous liberal calling conservatives unpatriotic. It is to laugh.

Trial Advocate

December 21st, 2010
10:01 am

Are you serious? They don’t want to give another victory to Obama? The November election was sure a victory for Obama, wasn’t it? DADT by a lame albatross congress will come back to haunt the dems. Cynthia you should seriously consider rehab. Whatever it is you are smoking has become a serious problem.

Wolf FAC

December 21st, 2010
10:11 am

There you go again CT. Anyone who opposes you or B Hussein Obama is “unpatriotic.” This retired AF officer, decorated ( 2 Silver Stars) Vietnam vet and affluent, well educated (MS degree) white 67 year old American male opposes START and replies “rubbish” to your left wing propaganda. Write about something you understand for a change.

mjpearl

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.

T

December 21st, 2010
10:28 am

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

Nomorelies

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.

Tracyb

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.

con10tious

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

Jimbo

December 21st, 2010
10:43 am

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

con10tious

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.

Quek

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?

soggy

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.

Jason

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:

OPEN LETTER TO THE U.S. SENATE on the New START Treaty

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.

Sincerely,

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.

HD

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.

Love,

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.

buffman

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.

pat

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!

kurt

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.

Historyshowsus

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

Jaimon

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 [...]

sebenza

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!!!!!

bill

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!……….

obamaotp

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!

cruiszn

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.

cruiszn

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?

Tim_CA

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.