Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[L.K.Eder]

What Mr. Kyl did not mention is that there have already been countless briefings and 21 Senate hearings on the treaty — sufficient for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the country’s top military leaders, six former secretaries of state (from both parties), five former secretaries of defense (from both parties) and seven former nuclear weapons commanders to endorse it.

As for concerns about “modernization,” President Obama has already promised an extra $84 billion over 10 years to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons complex and its arsenal. That would raise spending 20 percent above the levels of the Bush years and is far more than we think is necessary

Senate panel OKs new arms treaty with Russia | Reuters

...
The document Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed in April commits former Cold War foes Washington and Moscow to reduce deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.
It picked up Republican support in the committee from Senators Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson. They voted yes along with Richard Lugar, the committee's top-ranking Republican.
But since treaties need 67 votes to pass the full Senate, support of at least eight Republicans will be required. Most Republicans have remained uncommitted for months, leaving the treaty's fate in limbo.
Still, arms control advocates said Thursday's committee vote was encouraging. "Bipartisan support is growing, momentum is picking up," said Tom Collina, research director for the Arms Control Association in Washington.
Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton applauded the committee vote and urged the Senate to quickly ratify the treaty.


...
The treaty is broadly supported as an important step forward in arms control by former senior security officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
But some Republican senators say they worry it may limit U.S. missile defenses, and some want Obama to promise to spend more money modernizing the nuclear weapons that remain.
The committee passed a resolution to try to assuage these concerns, without actually changing the treaty text.
Written by Lugar, the resolution declared that the treaty does not "impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defense" apart from one clause banning the use of missile silos or submarine launch tubes to house missile interceptors.
The resolution also said that if the government doesn't adequately fund nuclear modernization, the president must report to Congress how he would remedy the shortfall -- and whether it was still in U.S. interests to stay in the treaty.
At the insistence of Republican Jim DeMint, the committee adopted another declaration that the United States was free to develop its missile defenses. But DeMint was absent for the final vote on the treaty.
..

 

[Flopper]

It's about stopping Obama: The GOP's stated concerns are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success," says The New York Times in an editorial. A failure to ratify this treaty would damage U.S. credibility overseas and undermine America's ability to pressure Iran on its illicit nuclear program. Surely "the nation's security interests must trump political maneuvering."

Sad, but true. Washington politics has reached the point where a win for the party is far more important than a win for the country. They want to block the treaty to block Obama. It's that simple.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

I don't know, but I know I would vote against it because it gave Russia everything they wanted, like the ability to veto us building a RADAR system anywhere where it might benefit our allies, and got us nothing in return. Pretty typical of the way Obama negotiates.

Obama: We want to build a RADAR so we can see if Iran launches a missile at Turkey.
Russia: You might use it to watch our children playing.
O: We can guarantee that will never happen.
R: No.
O: We will allow you real time access to the site and its data.
R: No.
O: We will reduce our nuclear missiles if you let us do it.
R: Reduce the missiles anyway, the answer is no.
O: OK

Didn't he do the same thing with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts?

START is directed at limiting strategic offensive arms.

obama's and medvedev's new START has not been ratified yet.

so, new START did give Russia nothing yet, you are confused.

But you can enlighten me how it would give Russia a veto against a RADAR system, when ratified.

 

[L.K.Eder]

The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to Senator Jon Kyl. After months of negotiations with the White House, he has decided to try to block the lame-duck Senate from ratifying the New Start arms control treaty
The treaty is so central to this country’s national security, and the objections from Mr. Kyl — and apparently the whole Republican leadership — are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success.

The Republicans like to claim that they are the party of national security. We can only hope that other senators in the party will decide that the nation’s security interests must trump political maneuvering.

It amazes me that people who criticize others for not knowing what a treaty is about demonstrate their own lack of understanding immediately afterward. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty has nothing to do with preventing countries like Iran from developing nuclear weapons, that would be the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since that was signed, and ratified, already the Senate does not have to worry about it, and you cannot blame Kyl, or anyone else, for Iran not paying attention to it.

I guess you could blame Obama for not doing enough to discourage Iran from ignoring it, but I doubt you will.

yeah, amazing. one only need to read the first page of the 17 page pdf to find the connection between the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons of 1968 and START.

or listen to what the senators said who voted for it in committee.

or use your brain.

START supports NNPT.

 

[MarcATL]

The Republicans can't contain themselves, the American People will quickly see what they are all about....stopping Obama at all costs....no matter what the consequences may be.

The next two years will be a hoot.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

It's a waste of time and money. Why do we NEED one now? The old one expired over a year ago.

So why are the dems pushing this to the grandstand now?

 

[Full-Auto]

The Republicans can't contain themselves, the American People will quickly see what they are all about....stopping Obama at all costs....no matter what the consequences may be.

The next two years will be a hoot.

Hello they were elected to stop Obama. That is reality, so no amount of whining will gain any sympathy

 

[Two Thumbs]

We will just become a new colony of China.

Please explain how not getting rid of nukes will make us a chinese colony.

 

[kiwiman127]

This is an example of the GOP putting party ahead of country.
Here's a list of foreign policy experts that think that START is highly important should be ratified now.
James A. Baker
Colin Powell
Henry Kissinger
Madeleine Albright
Bill Cohen
William Perry
General Brent Scowcroft
To be sure, the above supporters of START have the credentials and knowledge that dwarf Senator Kyle's and actually anyone who is a member of the Senate. It's impossible to find anyone who opposes this treaty who has anything close to the handle these folks have regarding the ramifications of START.
What we have here are amateurs who are ignoring the experts knowledgeable opinion, dictating policy. Isn't that the same thing that Obama has been guilty of?

 

[uscitizen]

Why are the republicans against START? It sounds too progressive to suit them. As evidenced in this thread many of them do not even know what it is but oppose it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

Read your own post there Moonbeam... you answered your own question.

Geeze Louise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

But, I guess I Will translate your own post for you..

It is a nuclear arms treaty, some feel careful consideration (unlike Obamacare) might be in order PRIOR to ratifying. We don't need another teachable "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" moment.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is ONLY one reason for the gop to fight this.

They place party over country.

 

[rightwinger]

But, I guess I Will translate your own post for you..

It is a nuclear arms treaty, some feel careful consideration (unlike Obamacare) might be in order PRIOR to ratifying. We don't need another teachable "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" moment.

Makes a great soundbite until you ask Republicans what their specific objections are. There have been 26 Congressional meetings on this so far without significant Republican input.

The Republican tactic is obvious...Kill START to deny Obama a significant foreign relations accomplishment.

Childish? Yes
Surprising? Keep in mind we are talking about the Republicans

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There have been 26 Congressional meetings on this so far without significant Republican input

Herein may lie the problem. They have been shutout since day one... it ain't like that no more.

It is a significant enough deal that I don't see how careful consideration and debate is a problem. But then again, as you noted, Obama getting a treaty under his belt may be priority numero uno rather than the substantive meat of the treaty.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is ONLY one reason for the gop to fight this.

They place party over country.

Wow.. you nailed it.

 

[Truthmatters]

They place party over country and the people in this country who care more for their country than their party will see them for what they are.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Failing to ratify New START has real consequences - TheHill.com

...

The Secretary of Defense has written that New START has the "unanimous support" of the US military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, testified in support of the treaty, as did the Director of the US Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen Patrick O'Reilly. The Commander of US nuclear forces (STRATCOM), General Kevin Chilton advised the Senate to ratify New START. He was joined by seven of the last eight commanders of STRATCOM who jointly wrote the Senate urging ratification.

...

Despite all of this, there are some in Washington who would urge the Senate to flatly ignore America's military and, in direct contradiction to their advice, postpone consideration of New START until some unspecified time in the future. But those who make this argument have failed to take responsibility for the likely consequences of that course of action, just as they typically fail to acknowledge that their recommendation enjoys no support at the Pentagon.

...

First, it means that the US ability to conduct on-site inspections will continue to be suspended...

...
And contrary to the erroneous claim that New START interferes with missile defense, Lt. General O'Reilly testified that "the New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty's constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas."

...

 

[Sallow]

There have been 26 Congressional meetings on this so far without significant Republican input

Herein may lie the problem. They have been shutout since day one... it ain't like that no more.

It is a significant enough deal that I don't see how careful consideration and debate is a problem. But then again, as you noted, Obama getting a treaty under his belt may be priority numero uno rather than the substantive meat of the treaty.

What unmitigated bullshit.

Their input has been included in every bill going through the legislation process.

Republican strategy is as follows:

-Lard each bill with as many clauses as possible.
-Complain to the media that they have not been included in the process.
-Make up false things about the bill.
-Filibuster
-Not vote on the bill once there is cloture.

 

[Truthmatters]

How in the hell can the right defend this partisan hackery?