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″>
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
267 comments Add your comment
Southern Comfort
November 22nd, 2010
10:57 am
jm
Not to disrespect those in the business community who are honest and ethical, but I haven’t seen many politicians who had “business” experience that didn’t use their office to line their own pockets. Back when businesses were focused on providing excellent customer service and long-term planning, I would agree that business experience would be a plus. However, with the current business climate that is focused on quarterly decision making to maximize profits and no long term strategic planning, I wouldn’t want anyone in an important office who couldn’t plan beyond the next quarter.
thomas
November 22nd, 2010
10:57 am
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
10:50 am
I agree,
Just thought it odd that many who blame the Bush Adminstration for us getting into Iraq based on faulty intel, now use a member of that administration to bolster their argument because she agrees with them?
I never in my post called her a liar, not once.
I was just curious to see any who have used Condi as an example of why this MUST be right and done, explain how she could have been so wrong on the Iraq thing but now she is the word of GOD?
Either she was getting bad information then, or she was being dishonest with the information given to her. So again why should we take her word now after it is the same people asking us to take her word, that were condemning her only a few short years ago?
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
10:58 am
jm,
Oh and…
“This is the one time I stepped out into making judgment calls, and I assure you I won’t do it again. … The frightening thing about the Internet is that people copy one chart from what you write and then it goes viral. So I’ve learned a lesson here that these kinds of issues are best left addressed by the people who practice them day in and day out.”
Southern Comfort
November 22nd, 2010
10:58 am
SoCo – he’s only Barbara Bain on the occasional wild weekend …
barking frog
November 22nd, 2010
10:59 am
I would assume that Condi Rice is ‘lawyering’ the
Exxon Oil Contract with Iraq, that we fought a war
to get put in place.
Jay
November 22nd, 2010
11:00 am
Ragnar, congratulations for your excellent display of the contorted logic needed to justify oppposition to this treaty.
You begin:
(1) Is it true that Russia has 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons outside the scope of the new START? What prevents those weapons from winding up in the hands of terrorists?
In other words, we not only need a treaty with Russia, we need a STRONGER treaty. The problem with new START is clearly that it doesn’t go far enough.
But then we get to this:
(3) We don’t need a new treaty with Russia. Russia is not a threat to the US, and the US is not a threat to Russia.
Now which is it? There is no logical consistency between those two contradictory arguments, which leads one to conclude that they are mere excuses cooked up to justify knee-jerk, illogical political posturing on an issue of national security.
retired early
November 22nd, 2010
11:03 am
Rangar
Damn, Rangar I never dreamed we had someone on this blog more informed than all those Generals, etc. So you don’t take endorsements from the people who have the most expertise?? OK…I get it, we are to ignore them and just listen to you. Right. much more convenient this way. Kinda like getting all necessary from Rush, yah, now I get it.
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
11:03 am
“justify knee-jerk, illogical political posturing”
Seems fitting for a character of Ayn Rand’s…
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:04 am
thomas
November 22nd, 2010
10:57 am
++++++++++++
Ahhhhh…….. I understand now (and agree). Sorry I didn’t catch what you meant the first time.
to many people spend their time playing the blame game. I’ve never been too much interested in who’s to “blame preferring rather to find a solution to the problem.
(that was a position statement lol, not a comment directed towards you.)
Gabriel Sterling
November 22nd, 2010
11:05 am
@USinUK and Retired Early: They are “reservations”. In the final analysis, this may be the best deal we can get in the current environment. The Constitution gives responsibility of the Senate to ratify these treaties.
@AmVet That collapse of the USSR was pretty good, peaceful merger of Germany, the START I agreement, NATO expansion, those are a few off the top of my head. Those aren’t exclusively GOP, but there are GOP Presidents in office when they did.
Adam
November 22nd, 2010
11:06 am
What I find interesting about this thing is how long they have tried to placate the GOP in negotiations and the GOP always asks for “more time” to decide. Every time they say they want something, the other side gives it to them, and nothing actually changes from the GOP position. It sounds an awful lot like… what’s the word? Wait for it…
APPEASEMENT.
Del
November 22nd, 2010
11:06 am
USinUK, do you think that this treaty deserves priority status in a lame duck session? Maybe I’ve missed something but I haven’t seen any posts that describe its urgency. I haven’t seen any comments from the proponents of this treaty that Jay mentioned stating that it’s essential that congress votes on it right now.
Gator Joe
November 22nd, 2010
11:06 am
Jay,
Republican complaints that there is insufficient spending to modernize our nation’s nuclear arsenal probably means that there is Republican crony profits to be made in this area.
By now it should be cristal clear the Right, especialy the Congressional Republicans, will stop at nothing to destroy President Obama and the Democratic agenda, even if means risking our national security, prolonging unemployment, and destroying our environment.
barking frog
November 22nd, 2010
11:07 am
I am surprised that others are surprised that politics
is the sole business of politicians. Anything else
that is accomplished is happenstance. I credit
Mitch Mcconnell for his honesty.
jm
November 22nd, 2010
11:09 am
jewcowboy 10:56 – yes, he was counting cabinet posts. His data still stands.
Of course, an administration does not consist solely of cabinet posts. But it is very indicative.
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:10 am
Del
November 22nd, 2010
11:06 am
USinUK, do you think that this treaty deserves priority status in a lame duck session? Maybe I’ve missed something but I haven’t seen any posts that describe its urgency. I haven’t seen any comments from the proponents of this treaty that Jay mentioned stating that it’s essential that congress votes on it right now.
++++++++++++++
I’m not USinUK, but I answered that question in my 10:56. It’s not only time Del, it’s PAST time……….
TH
November 22nd, 2010
11:12 am
Today is November 22.
BONER, WHERE ARE THE JOBS CREATED FROM THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY?
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:12 am
Gator Joe
November 22nd, 2010
11:06 am
By now it should be cristal clear the Right, especialy the Congressional Republicans, will stop at nothing to destroy President Obama and the Democratic agenda, even if means risking our national security, prolonging unemployment, and destroying our environment.
+++++++++++++++
Christ on a crutch, you forgot to accuse them of starving the children and poisoning grandma’s apple pie………………..
Just damn………
USinUK
November 22nd, 2010
11:13 am
Del – “USinUK, do you think that this treaty deserves priority status in a lame duck session?”
you have other things more important than natinal security you’d like to spend your time on?
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
11:14 am
jm,
“yes, he was counting cabinet posts. His data still stands.”
I guess you missed this:
“Cembalest said he has “written 250,000 words in research over the last decade, and every single thing I’ve ever done — except this one chart — was empirically based on data from the Federal Reserve” or another official source.”
His results were subjective and he says so. Not quite the “Very accurate and statistics based” data as you would suggest.
USinUK
November 22nd, 2010
11:15 am
Gabe – “The Constitution gives responsibility of the Senate to ratify these treaties.”
I totally agree – and when experts across the spectrum say that this needs to be ratified, the Senate should do so.
barking frog
November 22nd, 2010
11:15 am
Treaties deserve intense scrutiny by the elected
representatives because they trump all US law,
even the Constitution.
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:16 am
LOL USinUK, there are the important like steroids in MLB, or if Cam Newton’s daddy tried to get 200K for him to play for MSU, or the BCS system. In other words IMPORTANT matter that Congress needs to address. Nat’l Security? Are you kidding? I blow my nose at you, I in your general direction…………
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:17 am
wow, break wind got auto snagged.
Bye Bye Empire
November 22nd, 2010
11:17 am
barking frog: “Treaties deserve intense scrutiny by the elected representatives because they trump all US law, even the Constitution.”
Ah, yes. Now I believe we’re getting a little warmer perhaps.
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
11:17 am
USinUK,
“you have other things more important than natinal security you’d like to spend your time on?”
There are probably some gays getting married somewhere or a store not saying Merry Christmas that can act as a distraction from real issues.
pat
November 22nd, 2010
11:17 am
Should the U.S. Senate ratify a treay when the Russian parliment recinded their ratification of the same treaty?
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:17 am
musta been a script error.
Can anyone tell me what script this website uses?
retired early
November 22nd, 2010
11:18 am
Gabriel
They have “reservations”??
the treaty is already a year overdue….Sounds like the same pattern of thought re Healthcare.. need to “start over”. What healthcare proposals did the GOP come up with during their recent tenure… I really don’t remember..do you… what was so important to include requiring us to “start over”..but we need to once again.. start over….actually.. GOP definition for “start over” = Stop completely.
Is there ANYTHING You can agree on..
barking frog
November 22nd, 2010
11:19 am
Does anyone actually believe that either the
US or Russia would hesitate to break any
treaty, if they believed it was in their national
interests?
USinUK
November 22nd, 2010
11:19 am
jcb and fred – I know, I know … after I posted the question, I thought the same thing …
and jcb – get with the program! this is a WAR! ON! Christmas!!!!
Matti
November 22nd, 2010
11:19 am
When is the GOP **NOT** playing crass politics with our lives? And yet some people lap it up, year after year. They remind me of abused spouses who never leave. “He loves me! Really he does!” Suckers.
USinUK
November 22nd, 2010
11:20 am
time to make like Tom and cruise …
have a good night!
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:21 am
Matti
November 22nd, 2010
11:19 am
When is the GOP **NOT** playing crass politics with our lives? And yet some people lap it up, year after year. They remind me of abused spouses who never leave. “He loves me! Really he does!” Suckers.
++++++++++++
And the Democrats are different how?
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:22 am
Good night? Where exactly ARE you? Mars?
Bye Bye Empire
November 22nd, 2010
11:22 am
Jay: “Now which is it? There is no logical consistency between those two contradictory arguments, which leads one to conclude that they are mere excuses cooked up to justify knee-jerk, illogical political posturing on an issue of national security.”
Jay, reminds me of Freud’s joke about the borrowed kettle, the logic of which is as follows:
(1) I never borrowed a kettle from you And besides …
(2) I returned it to you unbroken; so what are you complaining about? And anyway, don’t you know that …
(3) the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. .. And so on.
Something of this structure is often at play when someone is engaging in denial or obstruction.
pat
November 22nd, 2010
11:23 am
Ok Matti, let’s see how the democrats did in the past two years….Ooooo, not good. Two years of failures led to an ass-whoopin’ in the past month.
Matti
November 22nd, 2010
11:25 am
Fred,
The Dems are not as good at it. They’re masters of compromise and submission, succeeding only when the Republicans scroo things up SO BADLY that the cost of their greed and arrogance can’t be ignored. Of course, the public has a short memory, which favors the GOP in the long run.
AmVet
November 22nd, 2010
11:25 am
Gabriel, thanks for the response.
That collapse of the USSR was pretty good…
I addressed that above vis a vis MADE. We as a nation are economically decimated due to the misguided attempts to outspend them. And now that War Always mentality has come home to roost. Crumbling infrastructure, massive domestic and social problems. The expansion of the military industrial complex into a full blown plutocracy. (The result of not heeding the last great Republican president.)
And Richard Nixon, said that Ronnie got WAY too much credit for the USSR’s collapse. Accorsing to him, numerous other factors and players were more responsible.
What exactly was the US role in the German merger? As I recall GHWB was neutral and relatively uninvolved. (He didn’t want to PO the West Germans).
START 1, was a notable accomplishment.
NATO expansion? That is not gonna sit well with the Euroweenie haters that predominate in the GOP.
Just my two cents worth…
Del
November 22nd, 2010
11:26 am
USinUK, I think our economy and jobs are urgent national security issues. The Start treaty doesn’t pose an urgent national security issue that can’t be addressed next year. It just doesn’t belong in this lame duck session.
Matti
November 22nd, 2010
11:26 am
Pat, thanks for affirming my point.
JohnnyReb
November 22nd, 2010
11:29 am
With credit to The Heritage Foundation -
Myth – terrorist will get nukes without the new START treaty.
Truth – There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are Russia’s 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!
Proponents – The new START treaty must be confirmed by the lame duck Congress or we won’t be able to verify Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
Reality – The Obama administration had the opportunity to extend the original START treaty, and therefore the inspections, by 5 years. Instead, they chose to negotiate a new treaty with no regard of the treaty being ratified stating at the time it was more important to “get it right.” In typical Obama arrogance, no concern was given to the Senate’s agreement it would be “right” and now the flaws of their ways are uncovered and the Senate balks.
TaxPayer
November 22nd, 2010
11:33 am
In a recent interview with the New York Times, Pelosi spoke about Boehner’s tendency to get emotional from time to time when it comes to tackling matters of policy.
“He is known to cry,” explained the California Democrat, who was recently elected to lead her party once again when Congress returns in January. “He cries sometimes when we’re having a debate on bills.”
Perhaps the Republicans are holding out until they get approval from Obama to send Crybaby Boehner over to negotiate a new treaty.
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:37 am
Just damn. I have to reverse my position lol. Yes START died and the Soviets withdrew from START II before it was ever activated. However we still have SORT in place until 2012.
Armed with better information I was previously ignorant of, I have to agree with you JohnnyReb and Del, that this can and should wait until the next session, not be rushed into existence.
Sort is even better IMHO because it deals with doing away with the warheads. START just gets rid of the delivery systems, IE Misslies, planes, artillery, ect…………
TaxPayer
November 22nd, 2010
11:38 am
TrueLies – Bush just had to invade Iraq in order to protect us from massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction that were just stockpiled all over the place. And the terrorists were just walking about in the open all over Iraq and probably seen carrying these wmd’s under each arm in broad daylight. The proof was right there in that 52-card pileup. Yessiree! Pictures of terrorists on every card that we had to get over there and capture. It’s the truth. Just ask any compassionate conservative and they’ll tell you what for.
barking frog
November 22nd, 2010
11:39 am
Off topic but maybe not, A treaty whereby The US
and Russia agree to use hydrogen fuel cells to power
all government/military facilities, thereby relieving
the power grids and creating water. Others could
become signatory or maybe we could do it unilaterally.
Good for military base security too.
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
11:40 am
Del,
“I think our economy and jobs are urgent national security issues.”
Yes, I’m sure the Republicans will get right on those issues as soon as they are assured the wealthiest among us have permanent unsustainable tax cuts.
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
11:41 am
TaxPayer,
““He cries sometimes when we’re having a debate on bills.””
It’s just the fumes from his bottle tan…
jm
November 22nd, 2010
11:43 am
jewcowboy 11:14 – really? You think he can’t reasonably determine if someone has business experience or not. He used a reasonably rigorous method. Data from the federal reserve is (relatively speaking) black or white. He had to devise some line to separate non-business from business. He did so. He’s not a generally biased kind of guy
Krike, sometimes you guys are impossible. jewcowboy, sky is blue today….
Paulo977
November 22nd, 2010
11:44 am
USinUK @11:13am
“Other things”?
Let’s see … just to name a few…Obama’s non-American values!
Obama’s country of birth !
Obama’s audacity of attempting to help the poor at the expense of the rich !
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:45 am
jm
November 22nd, 2010
11:43 am
Krike, sometimes you guys are impossible. jewcowboy, sky is blue today….
++++++++++
Not at my house…………
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
11:47 am
jm,
Yeah really. He even said his results were subjective…what part of subjective is confusing?
“sky is blue today….”
Not where I’m sitting…it’s gray. But, then, that might be subjective.
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
11:51 am
Paulo977
November 22nd, 2010
11:44 am
Let’s see … just to name a few…Obama’s non-American values!
Obama’s country of birth !
Obama’s audacity of attempting to help the poor at the expense of the rich !
++++++++++++++++
What are his non American values?
His Country of Birth is the US you insipid little man.
Helping the poor at the expense of the rich? Do you mean the rich fat cat’s getting richer off our invasion of Iraq? WHy do YOU hate your country so much? You support a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to go to Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan yet hate your fellow Americans so much that you can’t stand the thought of a trillion dollars for health care for them?
how about quit having the rich suck off the poor. A trillion American tax dollars to bail out banks and insurance companies after they spent their profits but not a dime to help those struggling?
Again I ask, why do YOU hate America and Americans so much? I see President Obama as trying to HELP Americans instead of funneling it all to foreign interests………
jconservative
November 22nd, 2010
11:53 am
Gabriel Sterling
If you do not like the controls contained in the treaty do you like the total lack of controls that will exist if the treaty is not ratified?
That is where we are today, no treaty and no controls. Russia could sell 1000 nuclear devices to Iran and we would not know about it until we read about it in the paper.
If this treaty is not ratified and a Russian bomb ends up in al Quaeda hands and explodes in down Dallas, Tx there will be no one to blame but those who vote NO on ratifying the treaty.
And that is the way it is!
Del
November 22nd, 2010
11:54 am
jewcowboy,
I am one who believes that a tax increase now would have a serious consequence in this fragile jobless economy. I think Congress should focus on extending the Bush era tax cuts across the board for all at least another two years and view that along with the AMT as the highest lame duck priority. The Start treaty can wait.
jewcowboy
November 22nd, 2010
12:00 pm
Del,
“I think Congress should focus on extending the Bush era tax cuts across the board for all at least another two years”
I would be fine with that, then make them all go away after two years.
“The Start treaty can wait.”
Or Congress can actually work together for a change and get some things done.
Paulo977
November 22nd, 2010
12:08 pm
Fred @11:51am
I agree with you!!! I was being sarcastic when replying to USinUK who was replying to Del!!!! These are some of the insane concerns of the Tea Partiers!!!
Don't Forget
November 22nd, 2010
12:11 pm
Look folks all these false comparisons to other issues is completely bogus. This is a national security issue. For the first time since 9/11 and before, we will not have the surveillance in place to help decrease the liklihood of nuclear material getting in the hands of al quaida. If there is some russian scientist or military officer that wants to sell some of this stuff to the terrorists, this is his chance. And the republicans are letting it happen.
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
12:11 pm
“Or Congress can actually work together for a change and get some things done.”
LOL did you have a straight face when you typed that? Those power hungry, pampered, posturing scumbags who currently make up both our House and Senate won’t work together.
Fred
November 22nd, 2010
12:12 pm
Paulo977
November 22nd, 2010
12:08 pm
++++++++++++
Oh. I need to quit for the day lol. That’s twice in one day I missed the sarcasm. I’m not usually so dense.
Sorry.
Adam
November 22nd, 2010
1:01 pm
Another thing I should mention is every SINGLE time I see a mention of George Soros, even before the most recent BS aired, I think “Fox News/Glenn Beck supporter/listener that believes everything that comes from there.”
I could go on and on about all the different predictions and claims made that were false, and ALL of them come from Glenn Beck. When it comes to George Soros, you can be assured that everything Beck says about him is a lie. And now, with his most recent spin-tactic, he is making every lie worse than the last.
I trust I’ve made my point
Adam
November 22nd, 2010
1:14 pm
JohnnyReb: There will be nothing lost by taking time to fully evaluate and debate START.
It’s already been debated, ENDLESSLY. Your point is moot. This one has been tossed around congress for a lot longer than the current news would suggest. Delaying and delaying is the tactic coming from the GOP side right now.
JohnnyReb
November 22nd, 2010
1:34 pm
Adam, yes, START has been debated, but obviously not to the Senate’s satisfaction. The current START treaty is not what it should be. The delay being attributed to the GOP just saying no is really Congress working as it was designed.
Adam
November 22nd, 2010
2:12 pm
Adam, yes, START has been debated, but obviously not to the Senate’s satisfaction
It’s my understanding that it’s not to a single Senator’s satisfaction, and that many attempts have been made to meet this senator’s demands, and he keeps changing the demands. They have debated this with this one senator a total of 57 times so far. Is that REALLY how Congress was designed to work? That’s kind of crap.
dbm
November 22nd, 2010
5:08 pm
Normal
November 22nd, 2010
8:00 am
I might as well share a remembrance I submitted to an entirely different forum, slightly edited for clarity and privacy.
I don’t remember exactly how I heard about the assassination, but I do remember it was at the overseas campus in Germany and that there were people sitting around listening to the radio. I also remember Bob ___ calling the phone and me answering. First he had some routine matter to discuss; I forget what it was, but it may have been that he and others were in Stuttgart and to let someone know they would be late returning. Then he asked me to see if I could find out if Kennedy had been assassinated. I said, “Yes, he has. He’s dead.” Bob made an inarticulate sound.
ODDOWL
November 23rd, 2010
1:40 am
The U.S. haven’t been able to inspect and verify whether or not the Russia nuclear arsenal is protected from theft. For all we Americans know, some rogue Russian General could have sold nuclear material to Al-Qaeda terriorists or some Christian Je-sus freaks. Those crazed endtimers can’t wait to go to Heaven and they want to take everybody else with them. I suppose that Herr Jon Kyl, Mean Mitch McConnell, John “Bull” Boehner and Pretty Boy Eric Canter are waiting on the smoking gun but what if the smoking gun comes in the form of a mushroom cloud.
ODDOWL
November 23rd, 2010
2:00 am
Congress should work together… What a cliche’ !!! It takes two to tango. The Democrats are standing on the dance floor waiting on the Tea partying Republicans to join them. The Republicans are wallflowers who refuse to dance with the Democrats.