Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[logical4u]

What could be wrong with START?

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

Perhaps thinking before doing might just save some unintended consequences?

The New START Treaty Is No Mistake - Brookings Institution

Funny, when you read the explanation from the Heritage Foundation, there are no facts, no in-depth study. Basically, it's just an "anti Obama" rant.

Then you read from the Brooking's Institute and you achieve an entirely different understanding.

Considering that former Republican Security advisers back "Start" gives it credibility.

The truth is, Republicans would put the safety of the nation at risk simply to keep Obama from reaching a "perceived" success. They just want him to fail. Even when he expands gun rights, they want him to fail. Even when they accuse him of taking a 200 million dollars a day trip, they point to that "lie" as if it were true. Anything. Just make the black guy "FAIL".

If, that is a really big IF, the President was concerned with the safety of the USA, DON'T YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE SECURED OUR BORDERS BY NOW, AND SENT THOSE THAT ARE HERE, ILLEGALLY, BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, including his aunt????? It is hard to believe there is anything here that helps secure this country when he works so hard at leaving us wide open for security problems and/or terrorists' attacks.

 

[Intense]

Top Republicans are urging their colleagues in the Senate to put off consideration of the Obama administration’s new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia until troublesome issues involving verification and limits imposed on U.S. missile defenses can be aired and debated properly next year.

“If the American people understood what was in this treaty, they would be deeply disturbed,” says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

DeMint, who voiced that warning at a conference of the Independent Working Group on missile defense, has joined Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Kit Bond of Missouri in arguing for a full debate on the STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) when the Senate reconvenes next year.

In a floor statement last month, Bond said classified documents from the administration that he had reviewed as vice chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee disturbed him so much that he was urging his colleagues to reject the treaty outright.

“I have written a classified letter summarizing my views that is available to all members in Senate security,” he said. “I urge them to read it.”

The classified record made it clear that the treaty cannot be verified Bond said.

In addition, “the Russians will actually be allowed to increase their deployed [nuclear] forces because they currently fall below the treaty’s limits. This raises a crucial question; exactly what does the United States gain from this treaty in exchange for a one-sided reduction in our deployed [nuclear] forces?” Bond said.

Beyond that, the treaty includes limits on U.S. missile defenses that will put America at jeopardy in the future.

“I have not heard any reasonable explanation for why we would give Russia this lever to use against our legitimate and necessary right to defend ourselves against ballistic missile attack,” Bond said.

The Obama administration has turned to a stable of former Reagan and Bush administration officials to spur Republicans to support quick ratification of the Treaty during the lame duck session this month.

Despite the Democrats’59-seat majority in the outgoing Senate, the administration needs Republican support because treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote, requiring the approval of 67 senators. That means they need to pick up the votes of eight Republicans.

Former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and George Shultz have all urged rapid ratification of the Treaty.

But on Monday, another set of former Reagan administration national security officials released a letter at a Capitol Hill news conference warning of the treaty’s deficiencies and urging the Senate to reject it.

Spearheaded by former national security adviser William P. Clark and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the signatories warned that the New START is “not consistent with the national security interests of the United States,” because it would give the Russians a strategic advantage while the United States is getting nothing in return.
Senate Republicans Urge Proper Debate on New START

 

[The T]

Top Republicans are urging their colleagues in the Senate to put off consideration of the Obama administration’s new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia until troublesome issues involving verification and limits imposed on U.S. missile defenses can be aired and debated properly next year.

“If the American people understood what was in this treaty, they would be deeply disturbed,” says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

DeMint, who voiced that warning at a conference of the Independent Working Group on missile defense, has joined Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Kit Bond of Missouri in arguing for a full debate on the STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) when the Senate reconvenes next year.

In a floor statement last month, Bond said classified documents from the administration that he had reviewed as vice chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee disturbed him so much that he was urging his colleagues to reject the treaty outright.

“I have written a classified letter summarizing my views that is available to all members in Senate security,” he said. “I urge them to read it.”

The classified record made it clear that the treaty cannot be verified Bond said.

In addition, “the Russians will actually be allowed to increase their deployed [nuclear] forces because they currently fall below the treaty’s limits. This raises a crucial question; exactly what does the United States gain from this treaty in exchange for a one-sided reduction in our deployed [nuclear] forces?” Bond said.

Beyond that, the treaty includes limits on U.S. missile defenses that will put America at jeopardy in the future.

“I have not heard any reasonable explanation for why we would give Russia this lever to use against our legitimate and necessary right to defend ourselves against ballistic missile attack,” Bond said.

The Obama administration has turned to a stable of former Reagan and Bush administration officials to spur Republicans to support quick ratification of the Treaty during the lame duck session this month.

Despite the Democrats’59-seat majority in the outgoing Senate, the administration needs Republican support because treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote, requiring the approval of 67 senators. That means they need to pick up the votes of eight Republicans.

Former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and George Shultz have all urged rapid ratification of the Treaty.

But on Monday, another set of former Reagan administration national security officials released a letter at a Capitol Hill news conference warning of the treaty’s deficiencies and urging the Senate to reject it.

Spearheaded by former national security adviser William P. Clark and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the signatories warned that the New START is “not consistent with the national security interests of the United States,” because it would give the Russians a strategic advantage while the United States is getting nothing in return.
Senate Republicans Urge Proper Debate on New START

Yep. I had heard this. The Russians are given the upper hand.

 

[Rozman]

It's because the GOP are a bunch of ignorant southern rednecks who just aren't as smart as the Oxford/Harvard educated liberal left who should run the country unopposed....

Or maybe the GOP wants to wait for the recently elected members of Congress to get sworn in and have a chance to debate the issue.Maybe that's it?

 

[Sarah G]

It's because the GOP are a bunch of ignorant southern rednecks who just aren't as smart as the Oxford/Harvard educated liberal left who should run the country unopposed....

Or maybe the GOP wants to wait for the recently elected members of Congress to get sworn in and have a chance to debate the issue.Maybe that's it?

Naaah..

 

[The T]

This Treaty can certainly wait till after the Lame Duckers are gone. I think most of America has no problem with waiting till January on this. This is no "Crisis." No need to ram it through.

The "Lame duckers" are certainly guilty of petulant rage to emperil this Republic further upon their exit...just like the children they are.

 

[Trajan]

for one thing neither Reagan, bush I ( who mandated dod develop a missile def prgm. ) and bush II who pulled out of the 72' ABM treaty ever allowed any restrictions on missile defense.Now however this has become slippery to say the least now.

 

[Intense]

This Treaty can certainly wait till after the Lame Duckers are gone. I think most of America has no problem with waiting till January on this. This is no "Crisis." No need to ram it through.

The "Lame duckers" are certainly guilty of petulant rage to emperil this Republic further upon their exit...just like the children they are.

Maybe they should have spent more time this year in session.

 

[The T]

This Treaty can certainly wait till after the Lame Duckers are gone. I think most of America has no problem with waiting till January on this. This is no "Crisis." No need to ram it through.

The "Lame duckers" are certainly guilty of petulant rage to emperil this Republic further upon their exit...just like the children they are.

Maybe they should have spent more time this year in session.

Perhaps they should have spent time on this issue rather than Obamacare, and taxing the shit outta people that are way overtaxed and outta work while the Congress adds more endentured slavery to the unborn?