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.