Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:54 AM ET, 11/17/2010

Republican irresponsibility on START

By Adam Serwer

The Republican attempt to derail ratification of the new START arms control treaty with Russia is a reminder of how far the GOP is willing to go merely to deal the president a political defeat.

Ratification of the new START treaty shouldn't be controversial. It maintains a basic trend in the reduction of the U.S. and Russia's nuclear arsenals that started in the 1980s, when the first START treaty was proposed by President Reagan, signed by his successor, George H.W. Bush, and ratified by the Senate by overwhelming margins. The current military leadership and a number of Republican foreign policy experts, including Former Secretaries of State James Baker, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell have urged ratification, and three Senate Republicans actually voted the treaty out of committee. That's left the arguments against ratification to the GOP's foreign policy fringe, whose objections -- that the treaty leaves the U.S. with "only" thousands of nuclear weapons, undermines U.S. efforts at missile defense, and limits the use of conventional warheads -- are as Fred Kaplan points out, basically nonsense. That hasn't stopped conservatives from engaging in a dishonest propaganda campaign against the treaty, hoping to deal the president a humiliating political defeat.

The Constitution requires 67 votes in the Senate for ratification. Nonwithstanding the administration's willingness to drag the process out for months to assuage Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl's concerns about the process moving too quickly, and even promising Republicans the pork they were asking for in exchange, Kyl is still indicating he'll block passage, Josh Rogin reports:

"When Majority Leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization," Kyl said in a statement. "I appreciate the recent effort by the Administration to address some of the issues that we have raised and I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Kerry, DOD, and DOE officials."

Of course if the treaty isn't ratified in the lame-duck session, it's basically dead. As with health-care reform, Republicans are pretending to want more time for negotiations when what they really want is to stop anything from being passed at all.

Before Obama's speech in Prague last year reiterating "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," there was Reagan calling for a "reduction and eventual elimination" of such arms back in the 1980s. Ever since Obama said he wanted to work towards the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, that banal sentiment, once expressed by Reagan himself, has become controversial. Republican opposition to the new START reflects nothing more than their tendency to reflexively object to anything Obama identifies as a priority.

The new START treaty isn't a massive shift towards Obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons. As Max Bergmann explains, it mostly retains and modernizes an existing framework under which both countries agree to reduce their arsenals and American inspectors are given access to Russian nuclear facilities. Failing to ratify the treaty, however, could have serious consequences, from disrupting the current non-proliferation regime at a time when the U.S. is trying to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program to soiling our relations with Russia when the U.S. is engaged in a nearly decade long war in their backyard. Most importantly, it would eliminate the method by which the U.S. monitors Russian nuclear capabilities.

It's not like Kyl doesn't understand the implications here. Last year, when he was criticizing the administration for dragging their feet on renewing START, he fretted on the Senate floor that "[f]or the first time in 15 years, an extensive set of verification, notification, elimination and other confidence-building measures will expire." Now that the administration has a plan for extending those measures, he's about to let them expire.

Republican leaders have been willing to entertain the notion, common among their base, that the president himself is an existential threat to the country, leaving little room for cooperation. Voting on START means making a choice between indulging the reflexive hatred of their base or acting in the U.S.'s basic national security interests.

The decision shouldn't be hard.

Adam Serwer is a staff writer at The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

By Adam Serwer  | November 17, 2010; 10:54 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Obama: GOP successfully outplayed us on health reform

Comments

As I said on the last thread, how do we make this a national news story? It needs to be made the first story on every evening news broadcast until the Congressional Republicans are seen for the idiots that they are here; I honestly can't believe that Republicans in the heartland--the voters--would countenance this if they knew what their representatives were doing. Would they????

Posted by: Michigoose | November 17, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Yes. First sentence NAILS it. Plus the link goodness to back it up. Extremely well done Adam, extremely well done.

This issue shouldn't be wasting our time. This is an easy one. Bipartisan. Military and civilian. We should just ratify the darn thing then get to jobs and the economy. Period.

Let's crank up the heat on this issue until it is resolved. Call/write your congresscritters and local media.

We should not weaken the President in the eyes of the world given the globalized economy, and we certainly cannot lose any credibility on nuclear proliferation -- not now, not EVER.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The key story line on the GOP tactics here is that they are PUTTING THE COUNTRY AT RISK and PUTTING OUR CHILDRENS' FUTURE AT RISK by their reckless, short-sighted, politically motivated actions.

Losing Russia's help on non-proliferation and Iran? No problemo, they say.

Undercutting the Fed's ability to deal with the overall economy and doing everything to scuttle any recovery? Ditto.

Calling climate change a hoax? Ditto.

Truly these guys are gamblers willing to risk everything on minority views and spite and a drive for political power. If we do have anyone to write the history of these times, these guys won't come off looking very well.

Posted by: Mimikatz | November 17, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

This irresponsibility from the right is truly becoming frightening. Cantor undermining the commander in chief, Kyl blocking necessary treaties. Where does it end?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The key story line on the GOP tactics here is that they are PUTTING THE COUNTRY AT RISK and PUTTING OUR CHILDRENS' FUTURE AT RISK by their reckless, short-sighted, politically motivated actions.

Losing Russia's help on non-proliferation and Iran? No problemo, they say.

Undercutting the Fed's ability to deal with the overall economy and doing everything to scuttle any recovery? Ditto.

Calling climate change a hoax? Ditto.

Truly these guys are gamblers willing to risk everything on minority views and spite and a drive for political power. If we do have anyone to write the history of these times, these guys won't come off looking very well.

Posted by: Mimikatz | November 17, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Maybe this is all tied into the evangelical dreams of the "End Days." Could it be that Republicans detest the START treaty because it makes Armageddon less likely?

Posted by: HansSolo | November 17, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Mimi, don't forget, the GOP wants to:

SPEND $14B on nuclear weapons that haven't been used in combat by anyone for over 50 years... all while rejecting unemployment benefits during a job crisis... and while adding to the debt/deficit.

Shame on the GOP. Shame.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

So much for being strong on National defense.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

There was some discussion on Morning Joe today that our failure to ratify the treaty also weakens Dmitry Medvedev within Russia, and strengthens Putin. That is certainly not in our interest.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 17, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Nice to see that there are none of the typical GOP commenters here trying to defend Kyl. Maybe there is hope that even the righties see this as hopelessly irresponsible.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"Nice to see that there are none of the typical GOP commenters here trying to defend Kyl"

Just wait another 8 hours until that clown Brigade comes out of his cave to take his usual pot shots on comments long forgotten. As for Kyl and the GOP, the Dems have an inability to question the GOP's patriotism. If the situation was reversed, the Dems would be accused of being "weak on defense" and not wanting the US to "win", whatever "win" means.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 17, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Sorkozy was right: Obama is weak. I can not understand what he is (not) doing anymore.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

This is nothing about Obama. It's about Reid letting the Republicans take advantage of polite traditions in ways not anticipated.

Bring it to the floor day 1 of the new session. Nothing and I mean nothing gets done until it's voted on.

Time for Democrats to make those filibusters hurt a bit.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, how is Kyl being an idiot = Obama being weak? Are you saying Obama should come out swinging and humble Kyl into submission?

I wouldn't mind seeing that to be honest. Put Kyl at a round table with Obama, Gate, Mullen, Clinton and throw in some old Reagan staffers and Powell for kicks.

Have Kyl explain to them why he's being a primadonna.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I think Shumer should assume his role and get the messaging department together ASAP.

Let not have a rerun of the last two years pls.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Have Kyl explain to them why he's being a primadonna."

Calling him a primadonna is being too kind. Kyl is pond scum. With him and McCain, Arizona really has some crap representation in the Senate.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 17, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Whoa there media frenzy feeders! How about giving our newly elected and those re-elected a chance to bring this NEW deal brokered by our unpopular president to their constituents. We, THE PEOPLE will then let our representatives know whether we approve of this treaty.
This is called responsible representation!
Unlike the health bill which was shoved down our throats without our approval. (which we voiced our answer at the voting booths) Our new representatives will be calling on The people who elected them, opinions on matters of great importance to OUR country and position in the world.

Posted by: nocroman | November 17, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

So lets reduce our arms while countries like Iran increase theirs... Just look the other way! Ignore reality and act as if we reduce our arms everyone else will follow. Because everyone in this world of ours is rational and understanding, right? I guess I'm one of the clowns in the brigade, huh?

Posted by: AnonymousCitizen | November 17, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Just one more data point that the once respectable Republican party has become nothing but the party of "No". No ideas, no commonsense, no morals, no fiscal conservatism, and no respect for the wealth fare of this country. They are a complete embarrassment and danger to our nation.

Posted by: mb56 | November 17, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

hey nocroman, the negotiations already happened and parties had agreed. All that was left was a vote.

Kyl is being an attention wh0re is all at this point.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I find it sad that a group of U.S. Senators, most of who went to great lengths to avoid military service during the cold war, are willing to ignore any need to reduce the number of nuclear warheads and missiles held by the Number Two military power in the world.

They saw no need to serve. They see no need to reduce a nuclear mishap with a power that is willing to reduce the possibility of a nuclear mishap and is also the primary source of nuclear raw materials to Islamic terrorists.

Of course, while the older Senators managed to avoid military service during the cold war, the younger Senators also managed to avoid any military service in our conflicts with terrorists in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with few exceptions such as Senator Brown from Massachusetts.

God forbid we would interfere with the Republican vacation and party schedule and ask them to continue a process that has provided a safer world through the actions of four previous Presidents.

And they wonder why Congress is held in disrespect by the taxpayers, electorate, and veterans.

Posted by: ThoseWhoServe | November 17, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

AnonymousCitizen, what does Iran have to do with this nuclear arms treaty?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I look forward to the State of the Union address, where POTUS can (hopefully) forcefully and unequivocally denounce Senate Republicans for being weak on defense.

Posted by: ennepe68 | November 17, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Russia not our friend, never will be, nor will China and the rest of commies and Muslim the world.
Typical lib crap, just hug our enemies, bend over and the rest of the world will love us and leave us along, CRAP. Screw the Ruskies, carry a big gun and we will live in peace.
Muscle rules, whips do not!

Posted by: JerzyBoy1 | November 17, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama “had to be told by the French and the Germans that his socialism was too far left for them to deal with.”

From the Ailes article - interesting take on Obama's foreign policy.

Obama's foreign policy has been largely UNDERREPORTED.

Mainly, because the media does not want to report on the Obama policies which are failures, or which go nowhere.


In fact, look at the last trip of Obama last week - half the media reports that Obama didn't get very far with his policies, and the other half just ignore the substance of what happened and they just show a bunch of pictures of Obama dancing with children.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"How about giving our newly elected and those re-elected a chance to bring this NEW deal brokered by our unpopular president to their constituents. We, THE PEOPLE will then let our representatives know whether we approve of this treaty."

Why even bother electing people? Let's just conduct a CNN poll on every bill and treaty and act accordingly. OMG It will be just like Dancing with the Stars!

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Duh, the American people have spoken. The people have made it clear that what the Obama administration legislation offers, is not consistent with the mood of America. There will never be a world without Nuclear weapons. In fact if we make it through the next ten years without someone using them I will be surprised. If Obama has to jam this through now because it won't pass in the newly elected congress, is It really good for America? If it has Harry Ried or Pelosi's
scent on it it probably stinks. The does anyone think that Russia will actually conform? If the do dismantle weapons could they control where the materials go?

Posted by: kbjj01 | November 17, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

JerzyBoy1, if China ain't our friend, then why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce holding seminars with China on how to better export our jobs to their country for maximized profit?

And, why did Greenspan, Palin, Chamber of Commerce, the EU and a bunch of right wing commentators all side together against the FED Chairman's QE2?

Who's side are all those people on? Why are they teaming with foreign countries against our country? Could it be that they are concerned about multinational investments in the Asian market and worry that a weaker dollar would increase U.S. domestic production and exports and spoil their foreign investments?

I often questions Republicans and groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's loyalty and every day I'm convinced they look at the U.S. population as a nuisance rather than a homeland worth fighting for economically. The military is only used by them to defend their precious treasure.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

So just drop START. It will be a good excuse to back way from Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. The US has been on an international losing streak since NAFTA and 9/11 anyway so its not like START will be some kind of big win for us. Let Putin deal with the Chinese if he wants to talk about nukes.

Posted by: SoCal | November 17, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

"Muscle rules, whips do not!"

Save the immature tripe for your high school year book, kid.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 17, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Q: how is Kyl being an idiot = Obama being weak? Are you saying Obama should come out swinging and humble Kyl into submission?

A: Yes.

Q: Why is Kyl humiliating Obama?

A: Because he can.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Irresponsible or not this is politics. So the President really needs to learn or play better politics, use the tools at your disposable to beat the opposition into submission if they want to play rough -- rough them up -- time to stop tring work with those that don't really want to work with you. Get their attention then, make sure they understand you have something to hold over their heads.

Posted by: Boomhauer | November 17, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"Irresponsible or not this is politics."

Please, show me evidence the past START treaties ever turned into a crying match.

Past START treaties passed with overwhelming majorities. This current batch of nihilists think it's fun to play with national security now.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Adam

The EASIEST WAY to reduce the number of nuclear weapons

solve this problem and the terrorist problem at the same time


is to use some of them in the Middle East. Solves two problems at once.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"This is nothing about Obama. It's about Reid..."

No, it is about Obama.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

So shrink, you're saying Obama should come out swinging and humble Kyl into stop acting like a spoiled little brat then?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

There is a reason why this is not a big news story - it's not a big news story! Dems wetting their pants on this is not a news story. How dare we wait until the entire congress is in full session to ratify an importaint treaty! How dare we not treat this like we did health care! How dare we not let a newly-elected congress weigh in on an importaint issue! In reading this shamefull paritsan rant, you would think Kyl is killing this treaty altogether. That we are starting from square one. That's not the case, but you would think so from all the crybabies on this board. There are new political realities to deal with. That's what elections are for.

Posted by: look2jesus | November 17, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Pragmaticagain-
"Nice to see that there are none of the typical GOP commenters here trying to defend Kyl. Maybe there is hope that even the righties see this as hopelessly irresponsible."

Wow were you proven wrong.
So we shouldn't sign this treaty because:
1) Iran is developing nuclear weapons so we need more than a 1,000 or so to counter that.
2) Russia and China are our enemies and communism is bad.
3) Nobody likes Obama.

Yep, those sound like sound, reasonable arguments. I'm guessing Powell, Baker, Kissinger et al just never thought about those nuanced arguments when they endorsed the treaty.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I note the commenter - obvious republican - who said carry a big gun etc.

What a fruitcake. Sure we both have enough nucs to destroy the world, and leave it to the maggots (which btw - thats a fallacy also - bugs die from radiation also)

Shows you what greed for power and money is all about -eg remember the good Republican who warned us about the military industrial complex. If he had added the corrupt oil biz (we paid for 9/11 with our oil imports) the focus would be better- Bush and his oil boys. Cheney and his Haliburton oil services biz. Who also make expendibles like APCs.

What if they gave a war and nobody came

What if we discharged all oour military and drafted the paranoid gun nuts of the NRA, who give us a murder rate in this country that is 7 times Canadas and 80 times England's.

Send the whole bag of these creep to afghanistan and let them fight the war. Make sure they have a bible in their pocket- the muslims love the christian people whos church murdered 40 million of them during the crusades. Sick puppies still.

Posted by: n6621j | November 17, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Well it helps the hawk Putin. This is another reminder that the two parties are NOT the same, and there are real differences that may seem minor at first but could have great effects later. Down the road, when Russia is increasingly more threatening and there is a new arms race, people who missed little things like this will see it as "inevitable." But, as is often the case, the reality is that it will have resulted from a specific bad decision made by the U.S. at a critical juncture.

Posted by: mypitts2 | November 17, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

WAPO's Adam Serwer (pronounced Idiot Spewer) thinks reducing 2500 nuclear missles to 1800 will somehow make the destruction sooooooooo much tolerable...what a joke..more likely a liberal thinking the savings would allow him and his liberal cohorts to eat more cheese and obtain more free handouts....this is one reason democrats and liberal rejects got evicted from congress...americans would rather build an Ark and shipped you morons off.

Posted by: JWx2 | November 17, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to get Kyl a lolly pop so he'll stop pouting.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out: Obama admits GOP outplayed him on health reform:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/obama_admits_quest_for_biparti.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 17, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

i have maintained for the last 10 years that the republican party no longer has the best interestes of the country at heart. republican politicians are only interested in the acquisition, maintenance and use of power for the benefit of their wealthy industrial backers. this is another demonstration of the validity of that opinion.

Posted by: allenj01 | November 17, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

This Start Thing


There is no rush to this, and it isn't even a crisis.

The thing is this: Obama wants to rack up a "win." Somehow Obama thinks if he pushes this through he has "something" on foreign policy.


Well - that first goes to show that Obama's other foreign policy objectives have gone so badly.


AND it also reflects a nervousness on the part of Obama and his people that health care just might get REPEALED.


If health care does end up getting repealed, then it really isn't an accomplishment of Obama - it represents a complete failure that only led to damage to Obama and his party.


WELL.....


CLEARLY, Obama's best chance RIGHT NOW is to put health care back on the table - and offer up SIGNIFICANT COMPROMISES ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL NOW.

That will allow Obama to negotiate on health care from a position of relative strength because the bill is already passed - so Obama would be wise to head-off the REPEAL efforts in that way.

In addition, that will preserve some of Obama's accomplishments on health care.


It really is Obama's best chance - but when has Obama EVER listened to REASON, or acted in a way that would work well in the long run.


All we have seen from Obama is short-sightedness, and actions which anger people and poison the atmoshere.

That is why the meeting today was cancelled.

Sorry - they should hire me to work all this out - both sides could use massive improvements in their strategies and public images.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 17, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"thinks reducing 2500 nuclear missles to 1800 will somehow make the destruction sooooooooo much tolerable."

Actually, that's just ridiculous to even come up with that assumption.

There's about 10 good reasons why this START treaty is the right thing to do and that's not even on the radar. Most prominently are cost reductions, accountability, avoiding further proliferation, are just some of the top reasons.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 17, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the President, he has the capacity to lead, to outflank, to divide, to upstage...the Republicans after all, are not popular, they have no leadership, they are very vulnerable. People are pretending it isn't about Obama, it is about the economy, it isn't about Obama, its about Harry Reid, it isn't Obama its is Rham Emanuel, it isn't that Obama can't lead it is because the Republicans are mean.

The Republicans are a dangerous mess. For better or worse, the Presidency has never been more powerful than the office is now. Obama needs to lead this country or we'll have to wait for someone who can. Still, of course it is good he got elected, McCain Palin? Just imagining that debacle is painful.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 17, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Holy smokes ashot. Where do these people come from and from where do they come up with these ridiculous ideas? Note that none of the Beckian comments are coming from our regular righties (wonder if those post got a Drudge or some other similar link) but these "folks" that are commenting are incredible in their ignorance.

To quote Dennis Eckersley after Manny Ramirez beat him with a walk off home run --

WOW!

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 17, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The President defeats himself quite nicely, he doesn't need Republican help in doing so!

Posted by: nestuc4 | November 17, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Way to go republicans - I can't wait to vote for more Tea Party backed republicans!

Give the Russians the old Ronny Reagan punch - man I miss Reagan!

The Russian's don't give a damn about the US it evident by there backing and supplying weapons to Iran.

It's time to build the worlds greatest highest tech missile defense system ever and load up on nukes!

Posted by: spokanedavis | November 17, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

All of this should make it perfectly clear to the American people that the GOP doesn't give a hoot about the America. They have one agenda: power and with that the money it provides. They will do anything and everything to acquire power -- especially if it hurts the Democrats. If the American people suffer, they don't care. If the rest of the world suffers, they don't care. All the GOP cares about is the GOP.

Posted by: abbydelabbey | November 17, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

This story is total bs, and a typical democratic response. Anyone who happens to disagree with your small view of the world must be out for their own personal gain, right?

Posted by: jblow50 | November 17, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"wonder if those post got a Drudge or some other similar link"

That's why posts like this are so important.

Anything that puts Kyl and the Tea Mess on defense (literally and figuratively) is a good thing.

That's why we need MORE ARTICLES like this. Let's watch as the Tea Nuts applaud making our country weaker and then laugh at them as their Dittohead talking points fall apart miserably. The more attention we can draw to this obvious pattern, the more the media will report on the glaring lack of factual accuracy on important policy issues like this one -- as is always the case with the extremist GOP Fringe Nuts.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunatly, the comment area of web articles has become the NutNet. We see over and over (and over) again how sarcastic hyperbole and wild eyed lunacy feels compelled to insert their world view regardless of context. Maybe it is a good thing that lunatics have an outlet for their raving. I really hope they get it out of their system. Regardless of your political perspective, no resonable person should engage with these folks. Do not encourage or bait the wackos. Civil discussion is possible. Let us find a way.

Posted by: buddecj | November 17, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Who would have thought it - libturds pumping their concave chest's espousing policies concerning nuclear tactics. What's next - actually having the courage, love of country and commitment to enlist in the military. OK, that ones a bit too much to expect from a liberal.

Here are the REAL issues concerning New Start:
1) The treaty would limit U.S. missile defense options

2) It does not provide adequate procedures to verify that Russia is living up to its terms.

2) It doesn’t make sense to reduce the U.S. warheads until more is done to maintain and modernize the remaining arsenal.

I love the circus; especially with Obozzo as ringmaster.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | November 17, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are cowards; cowards can be dangerous.
They have no one that they can run for president and win against President Obama. So they will try and destroy the country if they can't run it. This is becoming more clear each day. Obstructionism then (last 2 years), Obstructionism now, and Obstructionism forever. Like all Pharaoh minded people they will drowned in a flood of confusion, fail, and be destroyed by the "course of human events". Case in point, there is not one Post here in support of the republican position that is becoming more difficult to defend as being legitimate or for the good of the American People.

Posted by: dmscontractor | November 17, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

We still have the capacity to sterilize the surface of the earth several times over. Anything more than once is either a welfare program for weapons producers or a pecker measuring contest. Or both.

Posted by: Capn0ok | November 17, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I understand the difference in ideology that exists between different political parties. We need it to ensure a sound democratic process. And as a result some decisions are "hated" by another group. But this is all part of the free political process and I accept it whther I like it or not.

But to oppose the START treaty by the Republican party is beyond politics. Why? Because of the subject matter. And the best the Republicans can come up with for trying to derail it is because they have "other work that Congress must do"?

IT'S REDUCING "NUCLEAR ARMS"!!!!!!!!!!!

What other evidence is there to prove that Republican Party in general is the party of HATRED, DIVISION, and WAR. And yet as the last election proved, middle class Independents and Republicans vote them in. It's mindboggling and sad and scary.

Posted by: dbtkgrace | November 17, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the article should lay out some of the reasons behind the lack of support for START like not allowing modernization of the current nuclear weapons.

Also maybe point out that Russia is not the main threat anymore and this does nothing to address N Korea, China, Iran and the other modern threats.

FACT: If we reduce the number of warheads without modernizing the ones left we leave in place we open up vulnerabilities in the nuclear response deterrent.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The GOP opposes arms reduction and they oppose withdrawal from the Middle Eastern wars. There's no money for infrastructure, education, and other domestic programs, but there's money for weapons and foreign wars? It's time for them to start explaining where the 3 trillion dollars are going to come from to pay for the Bush wars.

Posted by: CharlesS | November 17, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The DEMOCRATS have been in control over the White House, Senate and House. What have they been doing? We have NO budget for 2011! We have NO decision on continuing the tax rate. We have NO decision on Don't Ask Don't Tell. and NO jobs! And NO shovels are ready!
And it goes on and on and on.
This treaty is just another item forced to the back burner by the Democrats as they decided to pursue their own agenda.

America, No, is not as stupid as this administration and journalist seem to think.
That was the reason for 2010 elections and will be the same, getting out the rest of the Democrats and Obama, in 2012!

Posted by: Indi1 | November 17, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I am neither Republican nor Democrat, and mention this only because I do not want anyone to think I am biased towards one or the other. Whatever the motivation there is for the Republicans to derail an arms control treaty with Russia is irrelevant. There needs to not be any arms control treaties with Russia.

A lot of you may be a little younger and don’t remember or don’t know that George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both pushed and signed arms control treaties with Russia. 1996 Russia admitted they did not honor the treaties and not only lied about destroying weapons; they were selling them to our enemies.

Since then Russia has aided and abetted terrorists, supported Iran with finances and weapons, and has even supported terrorist arms dealers. Why in God’s name would you sign a treaty with a nation that has continuously shown they are an enemy? Russia has never claimed they were our allies; they just stopped conflict when they collapsed, but that conflict is building again, and not because of the U.S.

When Barack Obama started another round of arms control treaties with Russia I just shook my head. I would love peace as much as the next guy, but its not going to happen. You need to realize we cannot control other countries and force them to like us.

As a nation we need to be focusing more at cleaning up our politicians. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of undermining this country by catering to big business, starting unjust wars, and mismanaging the Government for personal gain.

Posted by: dboz555 | November 17, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The GOP opposes arms reduction and they oppose withdrawal from the Middle Eastern wars. There's no money for infrastructure, education, and other domestic programs, but there's money for weapons and foreign wars? It's time for them to start explaining where the 3 trillion dollars are going to come from to pay for the Bush wars.

Posted by: CharlesS | November 17, 2010 1:01 PM
================
Your 3 trillion dollar is a worn out talking point designed for the 2008 elections. Get with the times.

Although I disagree with the war the REAL price tag is under a trillion.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

WH still wants a vote this year:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/11/wh_wants_vote_on_russia_nuclear_pact_this_year.php

Don't back down, Mr. President!

Make Kyl vote against the military. Make him vote against our national security. Make him vote against reducing nuclear weapons. Make him. Force him. Bend him. Break him.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"This story is total bs, and a typical democratic response."

Are you saying that the story isn't true or that it isn't a big deal? If it isn't a big deal than why doesn't Kyl sign it?


"Anyone who happens to disagree with your small view of the world must be out for their own personal gain, right?"

No, but given that Kyl is seeking to add a bunch of money before he agree to vote for the treaty it appears pretty obvious he is looking for personal gain. It would help if any poster defending Kyl could provide a coherent policy reason for not signing the treaty originally promoted by Republican President, signed by a subsequent Republican President and supported by countless other Republican policy makers, past and present.

No, referring to Russia as a threat doesn't count. When the treay was orignally signed, Russia was a much greater threat than it is now and not signing the treaty likley makes them a bigger threat. You no longer want access to their nuclear facilities?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

What is really appalling is that the Post prefers to bash only Republicans when they are wrong--why don't they take after the Demos on Trade pacts and public Sky High Pensions?

Posted by: Pugetkid | November 17, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Russia is not the USSR. The main opponent in the nuclear arena is China. Any word on China signing up for this foolishness? Luckily there are Republicans that have a better grasp of reality that Odumbo. 2012 cannot get here soon enough to get this empty suit out of the White House. Actually, an empty suit would be an upgrade.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | November 17, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh, how I long for politicians who actually care for the good of the nation, not just for political victories or molding the government to suit the rich.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | November 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@Cryos: """Maybe the article should lay out some of the reasons behind the lack of support for START like not allowing modernization of the current nuclear weapons."""

Maybe you're ignorant of the fact that Obama already included $10B for modernization in his budget. Kyl wants $4B ADDITIONAL on top of that. While opposing unemployment benefits for the jobless. Nice.

"""Also maybe point out that Russia is not the main threat anymore and this does nothing to address N Korea, China, Iran and the other modern threats."""

I guess we don't need to know anything about new nukes that Russia is developing. Ho hum, nothing to see here, right Cryos?

Cryos, you are either a liar or you are spreading lies on behalf of people who will do ANYTHING to damage this President, even if it means harming our national security and our credibility as a country. Wake up, Cryos.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

It is the democratic agenda to destroy the strength of the US and redistribute it to the rest of the world. This is just another step in that process. I applaud the gentleman who indicate we should never trust or sign a treaty with Russia. You appear to be one of the few on this forum with any common sense. All the D's on here blindly follow their constituents right off a cliff.

Posted by: jblow50 | November 17, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Cryos sounds exactly like a political candidate in the 60s....like I said..scary!

Posted by: dbtkgrace | November 17, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

jblow50,

The entire U.S. military disagrees with you.

"Country First"!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

It is always so nice to see all these left wing nuts & commie lovers salivating over what somebody like Adam Serwer ( or should that be spelled " Sewer " ?? ) is blathering about now, and who is a staff writer at The American Prospect, which is otherwise known as PRAVDA West. Keep up the character assassinations and lies that all you left-wingers cherish to your core.... Come November 6, 2012 you will have a whole lot more to cry about ! LOL

Posted by: delawarejack | November 17, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

@Cryos: """Maybe the article should lay out some of the reasons behind the lack of support for START like not allowing modernization of the current nuclear weapons."""

Maybe you're ignorant of the fact that Obama already included $10B for modernization in his budget. Kyl wants $4B ADDITIONAL on top of that. While opposing unemployment benefits for the jobless. Nice.

"""Also maybe point out that Russia is not the main threat anymore and this does nothing to address N Korea, China, Iran and the other modern threats."""

I guess we don't need to know anything about new nukes that Russia is developing. Ho hum, nothing to see here, right Cryos?

Cryos, you are either a liar or you are spreading lies on behalf of people who will do ANYTHING to damage this President, even if it means harming our national security and our credibility as a country. Wake up, Cryos.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 1:08 PM
==============
Please stop foaming at the mouth and creating strawmen. It does nothing for the discussion but make you look mentally unstable.

Unemployed have had 99 WEEKS to find a job. If you can't find a job at that point then you need to start looking at other temporary jobs. 2 YEARS - this is welfare not unemployment.

You're the one that needs to wake up.

A treaty, not giving the budget to modernize our nuclear deterrent, with a country no longer the primary nuclear threat is just window dressing and idealistic.

"No nukes" is a great 5 year old ideal however the REAL world is a bit more complicated.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"I applaud the gentleman who indicate we should never trust or sign a treaty with Russia. You appear to be one of the few on this forum with any common sense. All the D's on here blindly follow their constituents right off a cliff."

Haven't you seen Rocky IV? "If I can change, and you can change, everybody can change." I mean the Russians were chanting his name and everything.

And can someone explain why the growing threat of China and Iran means we shoudln't sing a treaty with Russia?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Considering how Obama/Pelosi/Reid RAMMED ObamaCare down our throat, with very little detail..."you have to pass the bill before you find out what's in it"....
no one should be surprised that there's some distrust of this administration!
Beware anytime anyone tries to "rush" someting this important through.
Let's get ALL the details, then rational minds can make the correct decision.

Posted by: ohioan | November 17, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

the GOP is full of buffoons masqueradng as congressmen and senators.

they are at best of mediocre intelligence and very type-A in personality -- the WORST combination for an elected representative (stupid and arrogant).

save the union!

Posted by: FranknErnest | November 17, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Cryos sounds exactly like a political candidate in the 60s....like I said..scary!

Posted by: dbtkgrace | November 17, 2010 1:10 PM
=============
Actually democrats are the ones sounding like they're from the 60s trying to fight the cold war still.

Newsflash: Reducing our nuclear weapons with Russia does nothing to address the REAL modern nuclear threats.

Obama hasn't the guts to address the real threats like N Korea and Iran so he goes for an easy victory with an old adversary. Sad.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Mr Serwer, "existential" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Posted by: skking | November 17, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

No one should be surprised by any of this. Republicans have said very publicly that they're more than willing to wreck the country in order to regain power. It's a disgusting display.

Posted by: rossor | November 17, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I remember how much I couldn't stand Reagan back in the day. I would kill for a Republican leader with the common sense of Reagan today.

Posted by: mypitts2 | November 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I like mikefromArlington's idea. Put Kyl at the table and have him explain in full view of the world why his blocking is a better course than all the other experts.

Kyl can either put up, or expose himself as anti American.

Posted by: nihao1 | November 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Comment by Cryos sound exactly like Nixon for staying in Vietnam. Only in hindsight wil they acknowledge their mistakes. Only problem is it costs the citizens of this country Billions that we can't afford not to mention the lives of thousands of young men. To all those who are in support of derailing the START treay, let me give you one fact. We are the only country in the American continent who is against it. Maybe Canada knows something that we don't?

Posted by: dbtkgrace | November 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

the fact is there are principled, thoughtful people who disagree with Mr obama on this treaty.

Our founders, in their wisdom, included the senate in the ratification process. This treaty should recieve the kind of deliberative process that the founders envisioned.

Mr Serwer, who apparently sees everything through partisan, inside-baseball eyes, stated quite plainly that he believes that Senator Kyl (and by extension all republicans) is a liar. With absolutely no evidence Mr Serwer alleges that priorities or disagreements are NOT the reason for delay. Oh no, Mr Serwer who did the vulcan mind meld with Senator Kyl I guess, KNOWS that all this is just to deny Obama anything.

Liberals here don't seem to need much proof either. Serwer said it, they believe it, that settles it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 17, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

DEAR PATRIOTIC AMERICANS,
SHOUT AND TELL IT LOUD TO THE RUSSIANS, CHINESE AND THEIR ANTI AMERICAN CRONIES VENEZUELA IRAN PAKISTAN ARMY CUBA WHO ARE PROMOTED AND SUPPORTED BY ANTI AMERICAN DEMOCRATS AND THEIR ELITE ASS SUCKERS WARREN BUFFETT, BILL GATES,GEORGE SOROS,MICHAEL BLOOMBERG,MEXICAN BILLIONAIRE,SAUDI ARABIA AN ANTI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER AND GREEDY GOLDMAN SACHS AND ITS GREEDY HEDGE FUND CRONIES/PARTNERS WHO HELPED TO PUSH OIL PRICE TO $4 IN 2007 WITH THE HELP OF NEW DEMOCRATS CONGRESS OF 2006..DESTROYING AMERICAS ECONOMY AND TRYING TO KEEP OIL PRICE HIGH AT $80 WHICH HELPS THEIR ECONOMY AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICAN ECONOMY, AMERICAN JOBS..BY USING CORRUPT ENRON FORMULA TO HELP OUR ENEMIES AND TERRORISTS NATIONS LIKE LIKE IRAN,VENEZUELA AND OPEC...THE COMPANY WHO SUPPORTS THESE SCUMBAGS AND SUCKS AND DRAINS AMERICAN TAX PAYERS HARD EARNED TAXES TO BENEFIT THESE ANTI AMERICAN BIGOTS AND KILLERS WHO ARE HELPED BY THE LEFTIST MEDIA WHICH IS OWNED AND FINANCED BY THEM...TO GO TO HELL AND BURN WITH THE DEVIL..AND ITS TIME NEW REPUBLICAN CONGRESS STANDS UP WITH THE PATRIOTIC HARD WORKING AMERICANS AND EXPOSE THESE ANTI AMERICAN LUNATICS AND ANTI CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS WHO ARE BENT UPON DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY , ITS DOLLAR AND ITS GREATNESS BUILT IN 300 PLUS YEARS..
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND AMERICAN PEOPLE,ITS GREATEST MILITARY AND ITS FAMILIES....

Posted by: signsvillage | November 17, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

DEAR PATRIOTIC AMERICANS,
SHOUT AND TELL IT LOUD TO THE RUSSIANS, CHINESE AND THEIR ANTI AMERICAN CRONIES VENEZUELA IRAN PAKISTAN ARMY CUBA WHO ARE PROMOTEDAND SUPPORTE3D BY ANTI AMERICAN DEMOCRATS AND THEIR ELITE ASS SUCKERS WARREN BUFFETT, BILL GATES,GEORGE SOROS,MICHAEL BLOOMBERG,MEXICAN BILLIONAIRE,SAUDI ARABIA AN ANTI CHRISTIAN CRUSADER AND GREEDY GOLDMAN SACHS AND ITS GREEDY HEDGE FUND CRONIES/PARTNERS WHO HELPED TO PUSH OIL PRICE TO $4 IN 2007 WITH THE HELP OF NEW DEMOCRATS CONGRESS OF 2006..DESTROYING AMERICAS ECONOMY AND TRYING TO KEEP OIL PRICE HIGH AT $80 WHICH HELPS THEIR ECONOMY AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICAN ECONOMY, AMERICAN JOBS..BY USING CORRUPT ENRON FORMULA TO HELP OUR ENEMIES AND TERRORISTS NATIONS LIKE LIKE IRAN,VENEZUELA AND OPEC...THE COMPANY WHO SUPPORTS THESE SCUMBAGS AND SUCKS AND DRAINS AMERICAN TAX PAYERS HARD EARNED TAXES TO BENEFIT THESE ANTI AMERICAN BIGOTS AND KILLERS WHO ARE HELPED BY THE LEFTIST MEDIA WHICH IS OWNED AND FINANCED BY THEM...TO GO TO HELL AND BURN WITH THE DEVIL..AND ITS TIME NEW REPUBLICAN CONGRESS STANDS UP WITH THE PATRIOTIC HARD WORKING AMERICANS AND EXPOSE THESE ANTI AMERICAN LUNATICS AND ANTI CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS WHO ARE BENT UPON DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY , ITS DOLLAR AND ITS GREATNESS BUILT IN 300 PLUS YEARS..
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND AMERICAN PEOPLE,ITS GREATEST MILITARY AND ITS FAMILIES....

Posted by: signsvillage | November 17, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

We the people must put an end to such partisan politics, and political bickering, because we the people will be the ones to feel the full brunt of there actions. The political atmosphere in Washington over the last few years has the potential to bring down the whole country, wile the population of sheep continue to stare and graze !SHAME ON US ALL

Posted by: gvalente1 | November 17, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who reads the HAARP Patent will know how outdated all this weaponry really is, and what a ridiculous show the political people and their slave media are putting on....this is all just another club to be held over the heads of the ignorant...kind of like the currency is, and the overall state of the economy, and the privilege of special interest big education worldwide...the HAARP patent is posted here: http://luxefaire.com/devilvision/tableofcontents.html (Appendix D) along with some other pertinent information concerning the true state of our military affairs. To see it, all you have to do is look up. And read meaningful things.

Posted by: luxefaire | November 17, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Puking Liberals...missing that Super Majority already? You still have the Lame Duck sessions to use to screw the US...Obama is niave, the Russians are card sharks, and so many cool aid drinkers can dream of a nuke free world while two really short, crazy guys are building up their nuke programs. If you think for one moment that the Chinese, or Russians are going to reduce arms, follow through on agreements, your fooling your self. Why is it that Puking Liberals think if we play nice, that means the rest of the world will follow? Do you really think of Obama as the messiah? I mean wake up and smell cannibas already!

Posted by: eello | November 17, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"Considering how Obama/Pelosi/Reid RAMMED ObamaCare down our throat, with very little detail..."you have to pass the bill before you find out what's in it"....
no one should be surprised that there's some distrust of this administration!
Beware anytime anyone tries to "rush" someting this important through.
Let's get ALL the details, then rational minds can make the correct decision."

You can't really believe this can you? The bill was debated for months on ends. There were town halls held discussing it and countless editorials, columns and even a televised political round table.

Likewise, everyone has known about this treaty for months so a claim of trying to pass this too quickly is nonesense. As for not trusting Obama, that's your choice, but what about James Baker, Powell, Kissinger etc? They all say we should sign it.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Anyone really thing Russia nor China or the rest are disarming...your all funny..but have to agree with most..nice dream...now get on with creating JOBS..>google>taxes we pay<

Posted by: rw62827 | November 17, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

This article and the comments are embarrassing. They are nothing more than a rant against Republicans. Republicans are not irresponsible for having a different opinion. Treaties should be bipartisan, that why it requires a two-thirds approval. Is bipartisanship just a buzz word?

There might be serious questions that should be answered before the treaty is ratified. The article however any particular issue.

Will our nuclear arsenal be upgraded?
Should launch vehicles be so restricted?
How will the treaty be verified?

Rather than kick the GOP, this article would have been better if it discussed policy points.

Posted by: delmere | November 17, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Comment by Cryos sound exactly like Nixon for staying in Vietnam. Only in hindsight wil they acknowledge their mistakes. Only problem is it costs the citizens of this country Billions that we can't afford not to mention the lives of thousands of young men. To all those who are in support of derailing the START treay, let me give you one fact. We are the only country in the American continent who is against it. Maybe Canada knows something that we don't?

Posted by: dbtkgrace | November 17, 2010 1:23 PM
==============
Your analogy of START and Nixon in Vietnam makes no sense.

Your defensive is reduced to Canada is for it so that makes us dumb? Wow.

The REAL issue is how just blindly reducing our stockpile threatens our ability for a quick counterstrike nuclear deterrent. A bunch of megaton missiles in N Dakota we would never use due to fallout are meaningless.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama...Obama...Obama...If you libs need to feel good about Obama, then go read his new Kid's book. The media is saying it is the best Kid's book EVER !

Posted by: tomkat2 | November 17, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if they'd let me have some of those old nukes? I need them for some......projects.

Posted by: emag | November 17, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans seem to be the only ones willing to act wisely in this matter. The Democrats have made so many fundamental foreign policy errors in the last two years that they have seriously eroded trust and respect in us among our allies and encouraged our enemies to lose any fear of us and increase their freedom of action. It is time for some adult supervision of this process, and the Republicans are the only option currently able to supply that.

Posted by: johne37179 | November 17, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

This article and the comments are embarrassing. They are nothing more than a rant against Republicans. Republicans are not irresponsible for having a different opinion. Treaties should be bipartisan, that why it requires a two-thirds approval. Is bipartisanship just a buzz word?

There might be serious questions that should be answered before the treaty is ratified. The article however any particular issue.

Will our nuclear arsenal be upgraded?
Should launch vehicles be so restricted?
How will the treaty be verified?

Rather than kick the GOP, this article would have been better if it discussed policy points.

Posted by: delmere | November 17, 2010 1:29 PM
=============
Exactly. There are substantial policy points to address but liberals want to act like opposition to Obama is the only reason for opposing the treaty.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Exactly. There are substantial policy points to address but liberals want to act like opposition to Obama is the only reason for opposing the treaty.
------------------------------------------

What substantial policy points have you or Kyl raised?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is reversing decades of U.S. strategy that supported the idea that there wasn't much point in Russia and the U.S. maintaining nuclear arsenals sufficient to blow up the world 100 times. In recent years, reducing nukes has been seen as even more important due to the decentralization of Russian countries and the... risk that posed in terms of a "rogue" power doing something stupid. The GOP is clearly playing politics with our safety....all to deny Obama anything that looks like an accomplishment. This is pure irresponsibility with no legitimate explanation. Sick.

Please join us at GOPHypocrisy on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GOPHypocrisy/118526228159115

Posted by: gophypocrisy | November 17, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Exactly. There are substantial policy points to address but liberals want to act like opposition to Obama is the only reason for opposing the treaty.
------------------------------------------

What substantial policy points have you or Kyl raised?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 1:51 PM
==========
Maybe you should read the post I responded to which has 3 points right in it?

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Just more Fear and hate from the Party of No!! Destroying America since Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 17, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

To Senator Kyl-boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: stevepj | November 17, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's an article that traces the debate at least back to July and based on the article, it was even earlier than that.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/27/gop_senators_leaning_towards_yes_on_new_start

So much for the substantive point that this is being rushed through.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Will our nuclear arsenal be upgraded?
Should launch vehicles be so restricted?
How will the treaty be verified?

----------------------------------------

Maybe you should read the post I responded to which has 3 points right in it?
----------------------------------------

Yes, it will be upgraded with 10 billion dollars although Kyl wants 4 billion more.

Are you saying 750 vehicles isn't enough? Why isn't that enough?

My understanding of the treaty is that there are inspections. Not to mention there is always the risk that the party on the other side will not abide by treaty. So your objection is as much to every treaty as it is to this treaty. I'm not sure that qualifies as a substantive policy dispute.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Will our nuclear arsenal be upgraded?
Should launch vehicles be so restricted?
How will the treaty be verified?

----------------------------------------

Maybe you should read the post I responded to which has 3 points right in it?
----------------------------------------

Yes, it will be upgraded with 10 billion dollars although Kyl wants 4 billion more.

Are you saying 750 vehicles isn't enough? Why isn't that enough?

My understanding of the treaty is that there are inspections. Not to mention there is always the risk that the party on the other side will not abide by treaty. So your objection is as much to every treaty as it is to this treaty. I'm not sure that qualifies as a substantive policy dispute.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 2:19 PM
=================
Your subjective opinions trying to dismiss the arguments don't matter.

At least you now admit the opposition is based on disagreements between congress and the administration.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

The American voter is now witnessing what he truly got when he voted the GOP back in power.

Joke's on you.

Posted by: SmallBusiness | November 17, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Now let's simmer down a bit. Sure we all know this is not "rushing into anything". But I'm sure this collection of Republican legislators do have things they think are more important to do. I'm sure that coming out with a resolution denying evolution, for example, has to be way up on the priority list. Maybe something that prohibits anyone in office from holding an advanced degree-or making sure we ask the plumber (or some other common man stand in) for his wisdom prior to passing anything.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | November 17, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The American voter is now witnessing what he truly got when he voted the GOP back in power.

Joke's on you.

Posted by: SmallBusiness
=========================================
Jobs created by START treaty legislation. Zero. Dems are clueless to the end.

Posted by: peterg73 | November 17, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Cryos,

#1 "not allowing modernization of the current nuclear weapons"

FAIL. $10B already in Obama's budget

#2 "Russia is not the main threat anymore and this does nothing to address N Korea, China, Iran and the other modern threats."

FAIL. Russia is developing new nukes. If we have no treaty, we have no intelligence on the new nukes. If we have the treaty, they must comply by informing us. As for NKorea and Iran, in case you haven't been paying attention, Russia and China are trying to HELP us stop NK and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. If we reneg on this deal, then Russia will be FAR less likely to support our nonproliferation activities on the U.N. Security Council.

#3 "FACT: If we reduce the number of warheads without modernizing the ones left we leave in place we open up vulnerabilities in the nuclear response deterrent."

Yes that is a fact. That is why Obama has already committed $10 BILLION for modernization. FAIL.

There ya go. There is a response to your "three points." Rebut those facts if you can, but of course you will not because you CANNOT.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Your subjective opinions trying to dismiss the arguments don't matter."

Section VI of the Treaty addresses how to make sure the other side is complying with the treating. So that's objective evidence.

The $10 billion is not subjective either.

You apparently subjectively believe that 750 vehicles isn't enough. Why? What objective evidence do you have to suppor thep position that it isn't enough? All the military advisors seem to think it's enough.

"At least you now admit the opposition is based on disagreements between congress and the administration"

Of course there are disagreements if they didn't, then they would agree.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again , the rich , multi-national REpublicans and their war-profiteering buddies are trying to start up conflicts so that their war-for-profit machine can gain more American tax dollars ! How stupid is America going to get before We kick these lying , profit before country REpublicans out of existence . The longer Americans wait , the weaker Our nation becomes !

Posted by: beenliedto | November 17, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Another for you Cryos, re: verification:

"""Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described some of the specific verification provisions.

"For the first time to be able to look into and see the number of weapons that are on top of any particular missile, where we haven't been able to do that before," said Admiral Mullen. "We will be able to count weapons on bombers which we haven't been able to do before. We will be able to, in fact, confirm [military] facility elimination - there are very robust national technical means provisions in this treaty and a specific provision which does not permit interference with that. The unique identifier which will be on every single weapon is a brand new provision for verification.""""

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/news-analysis/Verification-Key-Component-of-New-START-Treaty--95636044.html

Cryos, your position opposed to New START is literally indefensible. In fact, it is just pathetic when you consider that it is A) supported by the entire U.S. MILITARY, B) supported by the ranking Republican on the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and C) supported by more than 70% of the American public (according to a recent CNN poll).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

It was sad to see that great Republican statesman Dick Lugar stand their during the press conference & beg his own party to approve the treaty.

Is that "Republican Bacon" we smell frying Senator Kyl?

Posted by: mikeconville | November 17, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION: All posters who are painstakingly providing point by point discussions of the issue-Please stop. You can not talk sense to someone who, if a teabagger, still believes we were attacked by Iraqis on 9-11. You can not "nuance" someone who thinks Obama is not a citizen,(ie, because he was born in Hawaii), or is a secret Muslim. You probably won't have much success speaking with an elderly entitlement-swilling "small government" proponent. And you certainly can not engage in any meaningful dialog with someone who gets moral and political guidance from a multiply-married, draft-dodging junkie. Please stop.

Posted by: whereareweandwhatarewedoinginthishandbasket | November 17, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Updated article at WaPo:

-Obama to push for Senate vote on new arms treaty with Russia-

New START reduces each side's deployed, long-range weapons from 2,200 to 1,550. More critically in the eyes of U.S. military leaders, it allows each side to inspect the other's nuclear forces to ensure there is no hidden buildup. Such inspections stopped when an earlier treaty expired last year.

[...]

Republicans have insisted that the administration spend more money to ensure that existing U.S. weapons are well maintained. The White House offered last Friday to pour an extra $4.1 billion into weapons labs and facilities, on top of a $10 billion boost it offered earlier.

[...]

Sen. Richard g. Lugar (Ind.), the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and a supporter of the treaty, warned lawmakers Wednesday that the modernization funds could be at risk in the next Congress, which is likely to try to cut the budget.

"We are at a point where we're unlikely to have either the treaty or modernization unless we get real," he told reporters after the breakfast with Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111701598.html

Why is John Kyl trying to make America less secure? Oh right, because he wants to destroy the President. "COUNTRY FIRST"!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 17, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I have lost all confidence in Obama. I would hit the re-start button on everything he has been envolved with.

Posted by: farmsnorton | November 17, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Is there a connection between Jon Kyl holding out for more nuclear weapon funding and his being senator of a state that stands to gain from this funding? Is there any personal financial gain in it for him? Someone should investigate.

Posted by: Specktacle | November 17, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"The decision shouldn't be hard. "

It isn't.

Obama would have a foreign policy success to his credit. The republicans would have no actual input or benefit to derive from the treaty. Obama 1, rep[ublicans zero.

Shut down the treaty, and it is Republicans 1, Obama zero. Just ask Mitch about the reasonableness about this.

And as for what America, or the world, needs?

republicans having declared themselves America and having declared the world irrelevant, from their point of view it is a forfeit, score 9 to zero and a win for the republicans, and a loss by forfeit for the irrelevant world.

And the Independents will blame Obama for not finding a way to get observers into Russia, and vote republican.

Reason no longer rules in American Elections, just selfish fantasy.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 17, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

its not a treaty its a give away. and so far its the only thing this president seems to be good at giving away, money and security i think he is good at writing children s books and TV appearances. leave the rest to professionals

Posted by: getsix1 | November 17, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The democrats laser-like focus on anything but the economy continues.

Posted by: peterg73 | November 17, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"This is nothing about Obama. It's about Reid letting the Republicans take advantage of polite traditions in ways not anticipated. Bring it to the floor day 1 of the new session. Nothing and I mean nothing gets done until it's voted on. Time for Democrats to make those filibusters hurt a bit. BB Posted by: FairlingtonBlade"

That won't help.
Don't any of you see what has happened?

There was once an Ameircan electorate divided into "Conservative" parties. They were Conservative in that they wished to keep the Democracy and the political and social systems that they were familiar with. These parties shared most values, and what real differences they had were in how much and how fast to change things. The Republicans were the far more radical in the change they would accept or engender, and the democrats were far less willing to accomplish radical change quickly. After the Civil War and the great expansion these positions slowly changed, as the republican party became the property of the wealthy and the democratic party remained what it had always been, the unorganized remnant of the electorate. By the turn of the century it was unarguably time for another great upheaval, because the very wealthy were beginning to have enough power to oppress the less wealthy. Republican leaders, like Roosevelt and Taft, (and, truth be told, like McKinley and Hannah before them) realized that this power to oppress couldn't be tolerated, and they tried to set in motion changes that would have reduced that power.

The wealthy owned too much of the republican party, and began to be, not conservative, but reactionary.

Still, the parties remained in their relative positions until after the Second World war, although the republicans steadily followed more and more reactionary leaders, going from Landen through Wilkie through Dewey, with a detour through Eisenhower, to the putsch.

The Far Right, Burchers and Goldwaterites and more shadowy and more radically ossified troglodyte tired of the diminishing position they held in the Republican Party, and staged a cute take over of the Party Rules committee. That lead to Goldwater and disaster.

Unfortunately, Nixon, a man of a Party of one, realized that winning was the basic value of his Party, and taught that value to the Republican Party.

Stay tuned kiddies for the exciting continuation of this fascinating saga.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 17, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Having gone through the entire blog, as a great admirer of US as a Nation; one gets a feeling that Republicans feel that the Security of USA is of paramount important and which is possible only by having superior Arms; while Democrats are more concerned for the withering economy. Both are right in their respective ways of thinking. In a very sensitive economic situation, it is better for the leaders of both political groups to converge their ideas and address apprehensions of the other and address in the best interest of the great country - USA. World needs a stronger USA to check the mindless growth of certain Nations at the cost of others. It is true America made China powerful by constantly buying their goods so much so that they have grown to the extent of even becoming a possible future potential threat. How can one thwart this threat perception? only by making America stronger by maintaining the already piled arms by spending requisite amounts. Now coming to "START", instead of reading it as "STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY" one has to equally feel it as how to "STRATEGICALLY TARGET AND REPRESS TERRORIST" and this is possible only when the Terrorist Enemy gets Fear in their minds. The day the fear goes by any move, be it less equipped or ill equipped, the roar of Lion will not be heard. Every Nation tries in its own way to progress in the process the Nation also builds its suitable security. To understand simply, a house with Ten Security Guards guarding one of the most intellectual and hard working professionals is a more safe place to live, work and deliver peacefully when compared to a house with lesser security guards. Now the point is how many security guards are needed. That depends upon the fact how many the other houses are having and nurturing to have more though putting up apparent posture of not having yet grooming some. The intelligent professionals working in the house with fully armed secured place will plan for a safer sustenance and continuity. Here a house could be understood as a country. Presently, USA is the country where intelligent, hard working people from all over the world chose to feel as a safer place to explore their abilities and eventually make USA as their home. It is a great open country. Let that continue by taking intelligent and sensible measures instead of having bickering among political groups. Money flows in to USA so long as people across globe think it is safe to invest in USA. The day people start thinking that it is no more a safer place, the inflow will slowly start dwindle and that is the problem. It is time the US with one of the most vibrant and intelligent democratic Polity act proactively taking decisions very carefully rather than fighting on sensitive matters openly.

I beg for pardon if me being an outsider, though a high admirer of USA, express any view that may hurt some of the thinkers who have been participants to this BLOG.

GOD WILL BLESS USA FOR BETTER DAYS!jai USA

Posted by: kaypipee | November 17, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Ethan try thinking about your arguments in a sane matter and posting them in a coherent post instead of sling shotting back and forth posting one new derogatory, accusatory post after another. I don't even bother responding to most of your posts anymore.

FYI Mullen is not the entire US military.

FYI one republican on the head of the committee is the view of one person

Public support of something in an area of technical expertise is more the result of media marketing than anything else.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Ethan your answers to my posts #1 and #3 are quite telling.

You assume because Obama thinks that $10 billion is enough that $10 billion is truly enough and there is no argument.

If you have unquestioning belief in one individual that is your choice but don't think that it applies to everyone else.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

It was sad to see that great Republican statesman Dick Lugar stand their during the press conference & beg his own party to approve the treaty.

Is that "Republican Bacon" we smell frying Senator Kyl?

Posted by: mikeconville | November 17, 2010 3:54 P
========
FYI Lugar has always been strongly for disarmament and has been instrumental in past treaties. It means nothing.

Posted by: Cryos | November 17, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Last episode, boys and girls, Richard Nixon had bamboozled the republican Party into being his vehicle to return to winning respectability in politics. Meanwhile because it was right, LBJ and the democratic Party, with help from the still existant centrist section of the republican party, passed the great Civil Rights legislation of 1964 and 1965, and gave the republican Right the elixir of life it needed to recover and thrive. Meanwhile Nixon built a coalition of anti Democrats that would regularly elect anything put up by the republicans, no matter how poorly those candidates did at listening to that coalition, in the hopes that those Republicans would fulfill Nixon's implied promise to repeal the Civil Rights and Voter Rights acts. And the far right began its systematic purge of anything that sat on the left most fifth of the Party. First Progressives, then Moderates, then insufficiently conservatives got RINOd and ridden out of the party. Somewhere the fundamental values of the Republican Party changed. Instead of seeking what it saw as the good of the Nation, it began defining the Good of the Party as the desires of the Nation. Now winning and giving the Party the spoils became the only thing worth considering. Now it wasn't important to win so that they could do what the nation needed, but to win so that Republicans could profit from the victory.

We see the ultimate result of that concept. Mitch can innocently ask what is wrong with the concept that DEFEATING OBAMA is wjhat the republican Party ought to be all about.

Winning, and power, are the ultimates.

Nothing, and nobody else, matters.

Now there is a Party that seeks to do right by its concept of what the Nation needs, and a party that believes that what it wants is all that anybody needs, and the nation be damned.

And there is no escape from this intellectual trap, because to turn around and go back is to admit that the Party was wrong, and now the party is a religion, to be blindly followed because you have so much invested in believing in this religion.

Not all that matters is getting your way, not getting the nation what it desperately needs. Mow we no longer share a concept of America and differ on how best to serve her. Now one party seeks to better itself by bettering America, and one party seeks only to better itself and beggar its opposition.

McConnel, Kyl, Demint, Palin, and the Teas are the ultimate evolution of the intellectual values that the Right has been pursuing for the last century.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 17, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

There seems to be a Grand Auld Party in their thinking processes. Ask not what you can do for your severance pay...

Posted by: JosephFurtenbacher | November 17, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

@signs - Everyone skipped past your post due to the difficulty of reading all caps. If you want to make a point, learn netiquette.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | November 17, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Most of this treaty is irrelevant and unnecessary. Part of it is unfavorable to the defense of the United States.

Current warheads are old and have not been tested except through computer simulations. Their reliability is in question. US deterrence, which Progressives are suspicious of, depends on reliable warheads. Many of the one thousand remaining warheads might be duds. Until we have new reliable warheads no old ones should be eliminated.

The treaty reduces launchers, submarines and bombers which can also be used to deliver conventional weapons. These will limit conventional US power.

The treaty includes a provision that will limit the development anti-ballistic systems. The Russians insist that this part be honored. This might be a Progressive bugaboo but in a world with Iran, China and N. Korea, this is necessary.

The verification provisions are weak, and Russia has not honored past treaties.

Russia has not been that helpful on Iran, but they seem adamant on protecting their arms dealer. The real competition with them has been over influence in their past colonies. An independent US defense policy without straitjacket agreements is the best way.

Posted by: COMMENTATOR8 | November 17, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company