GOP playing crass politics with nuclear treaty

According to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ratification of the New START treaty with Russia is “essential to our future security.” Every single member of the joint chiefs backs him in that conclusion.

Republican foreign policy experts from Henry Kissinger to Condoleezza Rice also urge the treaty’s approval by the U.S. Senate, noting that without the treaty, the United States will be unable to inspect Russia’s nuclear arsenal, unable to carry out Ronald Reagan’s dictum of “trust but verify.”

U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has challenged his fellow party members to have the guts to step forward and do their duty to their country.

“Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty,” Lugar said last week. “Maybe people would prefer not to do his or her duty right now. Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote.”

“If we don’t get the treaty, [the Russians] are not constrained in their development of force structure and… we have no insight into what they’re doing,” according to Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of the U.S. Strategic Command. “So it’s the worst of both possible worlds.”

But Senate Republicans refuse to step up to approve the arms control pact, which requires a two-thirds majority. None of their professed “reasons” make sense. For example, they complain that not enough is being spent on modernizing the nation’s existing nuclear arsenal, which will retain 1,550 warheads. Yet the Obama administration has committed $84 billion over 10 years to the task, which many experts say is unnecessary and which is considerably more than the Bush administration had spent.

Yet it is allegedly not enough. Not as long as President Barack Obama occupies the White House. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly and repeatedly announced that his No. 1 goal over the next two years is to defeat Obama, and this demonstrates the ludricrous, dangerous lengths that he is willing to take to achieve that goal.

It is telling that in 2002, when President Bush brought an arms reduction treaty before the Senate, it passed by a vote of 100-0.

U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia. voted in favor of the treaty in committee, but has not promised to supporting it in a floor vote. He can be contacted at his Senate office. His seatmate, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, is also noncommittal. He too can be contacted at his Senate office.

There is no excuse for this, no rationalization that explains it in any way other than a crass political ploy on an issue of unchallenged national security importance.

It is shameful.

UPDATE: Here’s Sam Nunn explaining why it’s important to ratify the treaty.

object width=”560″ height=”340″>

267 comments Add your comment

Granny Godzilla

November 22nd, 2010
7:57 am

Party first, eh Republicans?

Normal

November 22nd, 2010
7:59 am

Granny,
They ain’t worried about no smoking gun…

Normal

November 22nd, 2010
8:00 am

Granny,
Where were you today, 1963? Were you too young?

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:08 am

“None of their professed “reasons” make sense”

there ya go again, Jay … expecting “reason” and “logic” to play a role in their deliberatins …

Northern Songs LTD

November 22nd, 2010
8:09 am

Normal – I know you didn’t ask me, but — 7th grade social studies in Dalton MA. The memory has never faded.

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:09 am

g’morning, Normal … I wasn’t even a spark in someone’s eye … :-)

TnGelding

November 22nd, 2010
8:12 am

So what else is new. True patriots, all. Sedition, or worse. After all, we are at war

RIP JFK and John Boy. You too Bobby. And let’s remember MLK, Jr. as well. We still haven’t learned a damn thing. Thanks for reminding us, Normal. I had been discharged from the USAF for 41 days.

Granny Godzilla

November 22nd, 2010
8:15 am

Normal

I was sitting in Sr. Mary Jessica’s class. She lead us in prayer and sent us home.

I remember watching my mother and father cry.

TnGelding

November 22nd, 2010
8:17 am

I probably shouldn’t admit it, but I shed a tear for my country. Lord, have mercy on our souls.

TnGelding

November 22nd, 2010
8:19 am

I was waiting for my sister’s son and daughter to get home from elementary school when Dad called. What a sad day in our short history.

TnGelding

November 22nd, 2010
8:21 am

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:09 am

You’ve come a long way, baby! You are now. Thanks for your reasoned contributions.

Road Scholar

November 22nd, 2010
8:23 am

I was in 5th grade class and the nuns herded us to the chapel for the announcement and prayers. His death was such a waste.

Gabriel Sterling

November 22nd, 2010
8:25 am

Going to carry my Twitter comments over here…
Why is the Administration refusing to give New #START’s negotiating record to Senate? Also, treaty silent on mobile launchers.
Also, treaty only covers launch vehicles. Silent on deployable warheads. Russians have 8,000 and that is where problem is.
New #START allows Russians to MIRV, encourages it even, while the #Obama administration has unilaterally halted that for US.
I guess what I’m saying is just because the #GOP is opposed to something #Obama does, doesn’t mean its just politics.

Palin fan

November 22nd, 2010
8:25 am

This country needs a strong military which is against Obama’s socialist agenda.

FinnMcCool

November 22nd, 2010
8:26 am

You people are OLD!!!!

Brad Steel

November 22nd, 2010
8:27 am

…not enough is being spent on modernizing the nation’s existing nuclear arsenal…

a.k.a. the republican’s Tax-n-Bomb strategy.

FinnMcCool

November 22nd, 2010
8:28 am

Russians? Republicans are obsessed with their fear of a Muslim Kenyan who has been handed the keys to their kingdom.

They aren’t worried about Russians!

Road Scholar

November 22nd, 2010
8:30 am

I guess Sen Kyl has problems reading. He stated that he has problems with it w/o stating such. So they want to wait until the new Congress is seated! Oh so a bunch of rookie legislators have a better feel and understanding than those who have been in office for at least 2 years! Yeah, right. Bring it to the floor when they return from another vacation (where are the conserves that lambast Pres. Obama for his vacations/golf but are silent on the House and Senate). Let’s see how the conserves dance around that!

FinnMcCool

November 22nd, 2010
8:31 am

How about Warren Buffet poo-pooing trickle-down, supply-side economic theory?

Even the guy with all the toys can call a spade a spade and face reality. Where are the rest of you conservatives?

Mick

November 22nd, 2010
8:32 am

This issue is exactly why so many are checking out of politics, nothing can get done with the party of no and their determination to weaken america by undermining the president at all costs. I hope in the end, it backfires.
I remember my mom crying coming home from kinder and there were no cartoons on the tv for days. Watershed event in history and our culture.

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:33 am

Gabriel Sterling … are you THE Gabriel Sterling who used to work with Charlie Norwood?

Normal

November 22nd, 2010
8:34 am

I was a Junior in high school, sitting in American History class here in SW Atlanta. Our teacher came in crying and announced it. Kennedy wasn’t well liked down here so some of the kids cheered. I never will forget the look on our teachers face.

Gabriel Sterling

November 22nd, 2010
8:35 am

I am, in fact, THE Gabriel Sterling that used to work with Charlie Norwood…why do you ask?

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:36 am

“Obama’s socialist agenda”

no, no, no … it’s Obama’s EUROPEAN-STYLE socialist agenda (with a Kenyan twist)

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:37 am

Gabe – heeheehe!!! I know you!!! (and, more to the point, you know me!)

unlike you, I choose not to publicize my name, so if you would keep it under wraps, I would appreciate it :-)

TnGelding

November 22nd, 2010
8:39 am

FinnMcCool

November 22nd, 2010
8:31 am

They’re busy blaming the oppressive government for prohibiting them from becoming Warren Buffets.

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:39 am

ladies and gents – I can vouch for Gabe – he’s a fine, upstanding guy (even if he is a Republican) – and he is one helluva cook

Gabriel Sterling

November 22nd, 2010
8:40 am

@USinUK have a pretty good idea who you are. What are you hiding, why not join us all in the sunshine?

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:40 am

Gabriel Sterling’s post typifies the smokescreen excuses used in this debate. The treaty does not address mobile launchers explicitly because neither side HAS any mobile launchers nor has any plans for them in the 10-year treaty window. Any mobile launchers that might miraculously come on line would come under the treaty’s clear limits on launcher numbers in general.

Yes, the Russians would have still have 8,000 or so deployable (but not deployed) warheads. We would actually have a similar number. And if we had agreed in this treaty to eliminating those warheads, THAT would have become grounds for GOP opposition (we’re disarming we’re disarming!!!).

In fact, it’s kind of funny to see the GOP pretend they oppose this treaty for all the things it DOESN’T do, as if they want to make it more restrictive. It’s fraudulent.

Granny Godzilla

November 22nd, 2010
8:42 am

Paul

November 22nd, 2010
8:43 am

“GOP playing crass politics with nuclear treaty”

I thought Sen Kyle was holding this up? Headline gives the impression it’s a concerted GOP effort.

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:43 am

Gabe – (I should hope you know!!)

no thanks. I prefer to remain anonnymoose. that way, if I ever run for office …

TaxPayer

November 22nd, 2010
8:43 am

Haven’t you heard, Jay. The GOP can do no wrong. And they have a mandate. A mandate to stop the Democrats for it is the Democrats that are destroying our very lives. Just look around you. Can’t you see the death and destruction that all things Democrat have wrought on us. Not to worry though. The Republicans will stand their ground and defend us from the evils that would have their way with us. Don’t you feel safer already.

Normal

November 22nd, 2010
8:43 am

big un

November 22nd, 2010
8:44 am

Road Scholar

November 22nd, 2010
8:44 am

Normal: When they got older (notice I didn’t type “grew up”) they post on these blogs as crass conservatives (not all conservatives are crass and mannerless). Not only did they not learn anything, but they make their mommas soooo proud!

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:45 am

And if all those concerns were legitimate, don’t you think that Condi Rice, Henry the K, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Lugar and the Joint Chiefs of Staff might have noticed?

Gabriel Sterling

November 22nd, 2010
8:45 am

Again, its the inspection of those warheads, not their limitation, that is the issue. No one is worried about the US losing track or selling them on the black market. That can not be said of the Russian warheads.

Also, the Russians had both mobile rail and mobile truck launchers historically. Unlike us, they would be able to redeploy and rearm those type of delivery systems pretty readily.

Curious Observer

November 22nd, 2010
8:45 am

I was on overnight liberty on Okinawa when the call went out that all Marines should report to their bases. The entire island was put on military alert. Someone evidently was certain that the Russians had a hand in JFK’s assassination, and we were ready to roll.

Normal

November 22nd, 2010
8:46 am

Doin’ right ain’t got no ending…

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:47 am

Kyl is merely the point man, Paul. They would need 34 no votes to kill it.

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:48 am

sfd, no namecalling here.

JohnnyReb

November 22nd, 2010
8:48 am

Gale

November 22nd, 2010
8:49 am

I was also in 7th grade, Science class. I guess high school kids haven’t changed much if a news of JFK’s death was received with cheers. Looking back on it, I am glad we didn’t have CNN then. They would have shown that few seconds of film over and over.

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:50 am

Johnny, surely you’re not proposing the Heritage Foundation as any kind of independent analyst in this.

Not when they send out mass-mailings like this garbage:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/04/heritage_targets_republican_senators_who_might_favor_new_start

Normal

November 22nd, 2010
8:50 am

TnGelding

November 22nd, 2010
8:50 am

Thanks, Jay. I was going to reprimand them. At least the guy has the courage to identify hmself. Something that doesn’t apply to all of us.

Paul

November 22nd, 2010
8:50 am

Gabriel Sterling

“Also, the Russians had both mobile rail and mobile truck launchers historically. Unlike us, they would be able to redeploy and rearm those type of delivery systems pretty readily.”

Yeah, and we had ground launched cruise missiles deployed to Europe, too. Road mobile, no conventional warheads, nukes only.

We could reconstitute them and redeploy them because they were part of our historical inventory. Any ideas on why the Russians aren’t using that to hold up the treaty?

thomas

November 22nd, 2010
8:51 am

THE CLAIM: The treaty’s backers say getting inspectors back on the ground in Russia is so urgent that the United States cannot afford to wait until next year. “This is not about politics,” President Barack Obama said Thursday. “It’s about national security. This is not a matter than can be delayed.”

THE FACTS: The urgency is political. Next year the Republican ranks in the Senate will expand by six and it will be much more difficult to ratify the treaty. Even the administration concedes that the security risk is not immediate. “I am not particularly worried, near term,” Obama’s top adviser on nuclear issues, Gary Samore, said Thursday. “But over time, as the Russians are modernizing their systems and starting to deploy new systems, the lack of inspections will create much more uncertainty.”

Intelligence officials have also expressed concerns about returning inspectors that have sounded less than urgent.

“I think the earlier, the sooner, the better. You know, my thing is: From an intelligence perspective only, are we better off with it or without it? We’re better off with it,” the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said recently.

___

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Nov/19/fact_check__arms_treaty_debate_full_of_half_truths.html

Paul

November 22nd, 2010
8:51 am

Jay 8:47

Thx -

Lord Help Us

November 22nd, 2010
8:51 am

JR – in your world, do the chickenhawks at heritage know more than the joint chiefs, Henry Kissinger, Condi, James Baker, et al…

stands for decibels

November 22nd, 2010
8:52 am

aw, Jay, you’re no fun a tall.

(I know, I know, we’re supposed to be nice to our guests.)

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:53 am

In other words, Thomas, the urgency is NOT political.

If it’s not ratified now, it probably won’t be ratified at all with more GOP senators, as your own post points out.

Deep Throat

November 22nd, 2010
8:55 am

More Liberal smear, trying to spread their hatred.

Fix-It

November 22nd, 2010
8:57 am

Liberals really need to wake up, people like Warren Buffet, George Soros and there like care NOTHING about you. They have made billions from our capitalist system and they want to make sure that you don’t. Funny how the ones with all the money and power feel like nobody else should have it. It would be nice to dismantle ALL of the nuclear warheads but what do you do with it then? Let me put this in liberal speak, “We need a comprehensive plan to disarm” that is how a liberal says we will do nothing…

JohnnyReb

November 22nd, 2010
8:57 am

Jay, I have more faith in The Heritage Foundation than the Obama administration and Republicans that have thrown their lot in with Obama on START. There will be nothing lost by taking time to fully evaluate and debate START. The White House is in full court press trying to get START passed during the lame duck to give Obama at least one win. The matter is more important than how Barry looks.

If you want to debate Heritage’s methods, we can look into all the Soros backed organizations and their methods.

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:57 am

And Colin Powell and George Schultz, Reagan’s secretary of state….

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
8:59 am

“More Liberal smear”

damn you, Condi! and Henry K! and Gates! and Luger!

you’re all a bunch of sissy-pants, bed-wetting libruls!!!

Fred

November 22nd, 2010
9:01 am

Let’s not kid ourselves Jay that this petty, selfish behavior is limited to the pubs. The Dems have also been guilty. None of the current crop of politico’s is interested in anything but their own personal power. What was the “health care debate” about? It wasn’t about health care, it was about which party would be able to channel the most dirty money to their own hand picked cronies.

It is more important to smear the other party than it is to actually do the job they are supposed to do, which is look after the interests of the American Citizens.

How would Nathan Deals creditors have gotten paid had he not been elected Governor? He vacated his Congressional seat and thus his source of federal money so without the State coffers to embezzle from, those “poor” banks would never get their pay off money back……….

carlosgvv

November 22nd, 2010
9:02 am

This shows the Republicans are already starting to cater to the Tea Party lug nuts. Sadly, all of the mindless who support this are utterly clueless as to how this will damage our security.

retired early

November 22nd, 2010
9:02 am

When JFK died, I was in Mrs Adams english class. The principal didn’t speak, he just put the radio broadcast thru our intercom system. We all felt a terrible loss.

On topic… so the senate during Bush’s term voted 100-0 to ratify and now, just because they want Obama to fail…the GOP is playing with our national security. What do you say Repubs.. you ok that.
This just shows how truly small minded you people are.

thomas

November 22nd, 2010
9:02 am

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
8:53 am

You are making your own ssumption!

No need for you to add words not there it only states ratification would be more difficult with the addition of the 6 new members.

Are you claiming that democrat senators would not be willing to vote for ratification at that time?

What is the urgency then since by President Obama’s own words he admits that he is not worried “near term”?

So what is the urgency then Jay? Democrats getting political credit for the treaty? Seems thats the urgency for you.

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
9:02 am

In other words, JohnnyReb, it’s more important to deny Obama a win than to decommission 700 Russian nuclear warheads now sitting on missiles ready to be launched.

Amazing.

Fred

November 22nd, 2010
9:02 am

First sentence should be is NOT………

Bosch

November 22nd, 2010
9:04 am

Like this Soros Organization?

The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, we build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities.

Governments held accountable, making government more fair, freedom of information — what losers.

Keep up the good fight!

November 22nd, 2010
9:04 am

Not much the Republicans do these days makes much sense other than to defeat Obama at any cost…….

TaxPayer

November 22nd, 2010
9:06 am

In other words, JohnnyReb, it’s more important to deny Obama a win than to decommission 700 Russian nuclear warheads now sitting on missiles ready to be launched

Well, Duhhhhhh! Where you been, Jay.

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
9:07 am

Right Thomas. With Senate Republicans lining up to oppose the treaty, it’s illogical of me to assume that the addition of six MORE Senate Republicans — Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, et al — would make it almost impossible to get to the 67 votes needed to ratify.

And remember, without this treaty we have NO ability to send inspectors to verify Russia’s arsenal. Great. Just great.

Think, people!

JohnnyReb

November 22nd, 2010
9:07 am

No Jay, quite the opposite. It is more important to ensure a good treaty than to just give Obama a win.

You write as if the treaty is not passed now it will never happen. Do you really think Congress would throw the treaty out FOREVER just to deny Obama?

Gabriel Sterling

November 22nd, 2010
9:07 am

My main point is, it is not blind partisanship and trying to hurt Obama that is behind some Senators opposition to a vote right now. There are real policy issues at stake.

And Jay, you attributing partisan only motives, only serves to stoke the flames of partisan divide that you have so often decried. Maybe you can assume that some, not even all, GOP Senators who are slowing this down may actually have the United States’ best interests at heart and not just the Republican Party’s.

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
9:08 am

Bosch – nooooooo, not THAT Soros … the Soros that owns the Librul Media! the Soros that controls our brains! the Soros that is the puppet master pulling the strings … THAT Soros

TnGelding

November 22nd, 2010
9:08 am

Doesn’t it take 67 votes to pass?

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
9:09 am

Gabe – “And Jay, you attributing partisan only motives”

but, as Jay said, when the “non-partisan” motives don’t make sense or hold any water, then the only thing that’s left is “DEFEAT OBAMA no matter what!”

Bosch

November 22nd, 2010
9:10 am

Yeah Reb, they’ll delay it so THEY can get the win. How mature.

[...] post by steaksyl and software by Elliott Back No Comments [...]

Mary Elizabeth

November 22nd, 2010
9:11 am

This is an example of the continuing “respect” for unbridled power, not service, in politics – by saying “No,” in unison, in order to destroy the presidency of President Obama at whatever cost to the American people.

This is the result of the growing, unfortunate “bully” consciousness in our nation, in my thinking. (If you are interested in reading an expansion of this thought, please see my Nov. 19 @7:52 a.m. post on Jay’s blog. . .”Legislators stand on college steps to bar entry.”)

stands for decibels

November 22nd, 2010
9:12 am

Maybe you can assume that some, not even all, GOP Senators who are slowing this down may actually have the United States’ best interests at heart and not just the Republican Party’s.

WTF have these sociopathic cretins done in the past two years that’d make any rational person presume such a crazy thing?

Fred

November 22nd, 2010
9:12 am

“Maybe you can assume that some, not even all, GOP Senators who are slowing this down may actually have the United States’ best interests at heart and not just the Republican Party’s.”

How so Gabriel? Santa may actually be real too correct?

I’m one of the few posters on this blog who is an honest to God true independent. Independently speaking it appears to me that on ALL issues, it’s more important to the pubs that they oppose everything Obama does just because he’s a Democrat. Everything a Dem proposes is NOT inherently wrong.

You little boys and girls on both sides of the aisle need to share the toys in the sand box………….

Bosch

November 22nd, 2010
9:12 am

That’s the new GOP way — demonize plans they came up with when Obama and the Dems decide to implement them (health care, cap and trade) and then when the screeching goes away, implement it themselves and take the credit.

Anything to make the Kenyan lose.

Normal

November 22nd, 2010
9:12 am

Jay, You said, “And remember, without this treaty we have NO ability to send inspectors to verify Russia’s arsenal. Great. Just great.”

But didn’t GW Bush look into Putin’s eyes and see his soul? He would never want to use those missles…now, would he?

TaxPayer

November 22nd, 2010
9:12 am

Do you really think Congress would throw the treaty out FOREVER just to deny Obama?

Clearly, if that congress is a Republican congress. Anyone that has paid any attention to the antics of the compassionate conservatives can see that. Or, you could just listen to the words from the true ass’s mouth, good old boy, Mitch.

Mr_B

November 22nd, 2010
9:13 am

Thomas: THE CLAIM:We need to put the brakes on this thing because the Roosins might have 8,000 bombs they can move around, but we won’t know because without the treaty we won’t be able to look and count, and they might let some of them Ayrab terriers git their hands on them bombs, but we won’t be able to stop ‘em because wiithout the treaty we won’t be there.
THE FACTS: Wein the GOP are willing to sacrifice anything, even the saftey of US citizens, if we can stop Obama from gaining any kind of political stature.

Bye Bye Empire

November 22nd, 2010
9:14 am

“U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia. voted in favor of the treaty in committee, but has not promised to supporting it in a floor vote. He can be contacted at his Senate office. His seatmate, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, is also noncommittal. He too can be contacted at his Senate office.”

It strikes me. How do you think Sam Nunn would have voted ?

Yet the question is pointless. Imagining a Sam Nunn representing GA in 2010 is like imagining unicorns grazing in a garden.

This is the measure of how far we’ve come.

Road Scholar

November 22nd, 2010
9:14 am

This just in: Pres Obama likes turkey, ham, sweet potatoes, mashed potatos,dressing…

I wonder what the Repubs will have for Thanksgiving?

Fred

November 22nd, 2010
9:14 am

Just damn.

I’m gonna have to go fix the girls breakfast just as this is getting good………

Paul

November 22nd, 2010
9:15 am

Gabriel Sterling

“attributing partisan only motives, only serves to stoke the flames of partisan divide that you have so often decried.”

It would seem that when such a large array of Republicans (statesmen such as Kissinger, Colin Powell), past GOP leaders, as well as others who are not partisan, such as the President’s senior military advisor -

and the opposition to it lines up pretty well along current Congressional party lines…

well, that just seem partisan.

Granny Godzilla

November 22nd, 2010
9:15 am

Despite what anybody says, I, as secretary of Defense, and the entire uniformed leadership of the American military believe that this treaty is in our national security interest,” Gates said, taking on claims by critics of the treaty that some in the military privately oppose the accord.

Right wing think tanks and right wing paid political activists vs.
Republican Secretary of Defense?

Y’all can say your stalling tactics are not partisan – but they just simply don’t pass the smell test.

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
9:15 am

JohnnyReb asks:

“You write as if the treaty is not passed now it will never happen. Do you really think Congress would throw the treaty out FOREVER just to deny Obama?”

Absolutely.

And Gabe, if it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, makes love to other ducks, lays eggs that turn into ducks and wears a lapel pin proclaiming “I’m a duck,” yes, I think it’s probably a duck.

JohnnyReb

November 22nd, 2010
9:15 am

Think People, think – on this. Did you know the treaty limits the number of aircraft capable of deliverying a nuclear weapon? Those same aircraft are also capable of delivering conventional weapons and have done so in Iraq. But that does not seem to matter, we will just give them up. Ridiculous.

Fred

November 22nd, 2010
9:19 am

Gee JohnnyReb, it’s really going to hurt us to give up 60 year old aircraft?

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
9:19 am

In fact, here’s MORE duck evidence, from the office of Johnny Isakson. He states the following on his website:

“When the START Treaty of 1991 expired on December 5, 2009, the United States lost all access to the Russian nuclear arsenal and therefore lost access to all human intelligence on the ground about their arsenal. As we learned in the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 and the tragedy of 9/11, whenever we lack human intelligence on the ground we become more vulnerable as a nation.

The START Treaty was initiated by Ronald Reagan (and then signed by President George H.W. Bush) because Reagan believed in peace through strength and “trust but verify.” Our biggest threat of a nuclear strike against America is a terrorist dirty bomb or a rogue nation strike from Iran or North Korea. The United States and Russia control over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, and the New START Treaty inspection and verification system ensures that the United States can better prevent a loose nuclear warhead from getting into the wrong hands. Richard Burd, who led U.S. negotiations under both Reagan and Bush, testified of the absolute necessity to continue physical inspections and access to Russia’s arsenal. In addition, every Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger has endorsed the New START Treaty.

The New START Treaty also ensures the United States can and will develop our robust missile defense system to protect our nation. Equally important, we have committed the funds necessary to both maintain and modernize our nuclear arsenal. The ratification approved in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was the Republican substitute to the Democratic-proposed ratification, and it was authored by Republican Senator Dick Lugar and amended by Republican Senator Jim DeMint.”

Yet that same Isakson won’t commit to voting for the treaty on the Senate floor. Now why would that be?

Southern Comfort

November 22nd, 2010
9:19 am

Where were you today, 1963? Were you too young?

Too young would not even describe where I was. I was about 10 yrs away from becoming a zygote then. :)

The whole problem I see with the START Treaty is that, this isn’t something that just came up out of nowhere. If Dems or Repubs wanted a “good treaty”, they should have been working on that long ago. To play politics now is assinine. If Rice, Gates, and others see a need for this to be ratified, I’m inclined to go with their opinions. They obviously have more experience and indepth knowledge than me. I’d also believe them over Senators as well. The GOP needs to quit “playing” politics and act as leaders. I’m beginning to believe more and more that their one agenda is “I Hope He Fails!”.

Can anyone tell me what grocery store I can find “More Liberal smear”? Sounds like it would go good on a cinnamon raisin bagel…

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
9:20 am

it’s the lapel pins that give the game away …

Granny Godzilla

November 22nd, 2010
9:22 am

JohnnyReB

Doesn’t the treaty actually only require the conversion of aircraft FROM
nuclear ONLY capability?

Bye Bye Empire

November 22nd, 2010
9:22 am

“Yet that same Isakson won’t commit to voting for the treaty on the Senate floor. Now why would that be?”

Well, Jay. I’ve resisted this explanation up until now, despite some temptation otherwise, but I’m not inclined to believe it boils down to:

Can’t give a win to blackie. No matter what.

JohnnyReb

November 22nd, 2010
9:23 am

Bosch – the one-way trips to Mars in the news lately – the first two should be Soros and Bill Maher. They can entertain each other belittling the common American.

Fred

November 22nd, 2010
9:23 am

I think Jay is a bit fired up on this issue. Would I be wrong? :P

JohnnyReb

November 22nd, 2010
9:24 am

Fred, the B2 is not 60 years old.

USinUK

November 22nd, 2010
9:24 am

SoCo – don’t go talking to us about liberal smears … we know you’re the one behind the nekkid airport screening pictures currently floating around the interwebs … sicko

thomas

November 22nd, 2010
9:24 am

Jay

November 22nd, 2010
9:07 am

Republicans have been known to be in favor or oppose an issue and then be oppossed or in favor of the same issue at a later time.

but Jay,

Are you seriously this scared of Russia or are you simply borrowing from the GOP playbook and partaking in a lil fear mongering?

Seems as if you are!