This is just so wrong

[MaggieMae]

Party-first obstruction. Major Garrett, once a Fox News reporter and White House Press Corps member, now reporting for National Review, discusses Senator Kyle's crusade to block the START treaty, set for renewal before the end of December. Apparently, upon Kyle's signal, every Republican Senator will vote against ratification, even if a majority of them don't want to.

msnbc tv- msnbc.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Party-first obstruction. Major Garrett, once a Fox News reporter and White House Press Corps member, now reporting for National Review, discusses Senator Kyle's crusade to block the START treaty, set for renewal before the end of December. Apparently, upon Kyle's signal, every Republican Senator will vote against ratification, even if a majority of them don't want to.

msnbc tv- msnbc.com

Ya cause those damn Republicans are to stupid to vote their conscious. Robots one and all.

 

[Sallow]

Party-first obstruction. Major Garrett, once a Fox News reporter and White House Press Corps member, now reporting for National Review, discusses Senator Kyle's crusade to block the START treaty, set for renewal before the end of December. Apparently, upon Kyle's signal, every Republican Senator will vote against ratification, even if a majority of them don't want to.

msnbc tv- msnbc.com

Ya cause those damn Republicans are to stupid to vote their conscious. Robots one and all.

Even sarcastically..

This speaks the truth.

Lockstep Republicans.

Gotta laugh.

 

[Missourian]

Here is what the letter Kyl and McConnell wrote to Obama on March 15th stipulated.

The article is dated April 9th, 2010.

"The Obama administration will need to meet three requirements if it expects favorable consideration of the START follow-on treaty," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. "The Senate will assess whether or not the agreement is verifiable, whether it reduces our nation's ability to defend itself and our allies from the threat of nuclear armed missiles, and whether or not this administration is committed to preserving our own nuclear triad."


Republicans say they have not yet been thoroughly briefed on the treaty but they are particularly interested in whether it would weaken America's ability to use missile defense technology. In a letter McConnell and his deputy, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., sent to Obama on March 15, they warned against linking offensive weapons and missile defense in the new agreement.


"As you know, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would ratify a treaty that includes such a linkage, including a treaty that includes unilateral declarations that the Russian Federation could use as leverage against you or your successors when U.S. missile defense decisions are made," McConnell and Kyl wrote.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama nuke treaty has a tough path ahead in Senate | Washington Examiner​

I am in 100% agreement...if these three benchmarks are not met, or if missile defense is linked with arms reduction, Republicans should not vote for it.

 

[uscitizen]

Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture. Featuring articles by Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Ramesh Ponnuru, Lawrence Kudlow, Jay Nordlinger, Jim ...
National Review Online

From Yahoo search engine, first hit.

Just another example of the right marching in lockstep to right wing commontaters.

 

[Trajan]

and of course the left never marches in step with left wing commentator/consensus...? this proves what? that the right agrees with the right? left agrees with the left?

do the articles have merit?

 

[Annie]

and here are some serious concerns, that should be addressed before any agreement is put forward for signing:

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

Only the abstract, the whole paper can be read at site:

Abstract: President Barack Obama has transmitted a deeply flawed arms control treaty to the Senate for its consent to ratification. While withholding consent is the sim*plest and most likely approach, the Senate may try to fix the treaty piecemeal, but this approach has inherent, serious risks. Fixing some of the serious flaws will require amend*ments to the text, and fixing others will require compelling the Administration to change some of its policies. Regard*less of what the Senate chooses, the stakes are high. As with all major arms control treaties, if New START enters into force, it could profoundly increase the likelihood of nuclear war and increase the number of weapons in the world.

New START is a deeply flawed arms control treaty with Russia. It is the product of a contradictory and wrong-headed approach to strategic nuclear arms control by the Obama Administration. The Adminis*tration’s approach to strategic nuclear arms control combines the worst aspects of Cold War arms control, which resulted in a nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, with the worst aspects of President Barack Obama’s stated policy of seeking a world without nuclear weapons, which car*ries the serious risk of generating a nuclear conflict.

Because the President transmitted New START to the Senate for its advice and consent on May 13, 2010, the question arises as to whether the Senate can fix the flaws in or associated with the treaty. The procedural and legal answer to this question is an unequivocal yes.

The Constitution grants the Senate broad power in giving its advice and consent in the making of treaties.[1] In giving its advice, the Senate can alter the text of any treaty brought before it.[2] Therefore, the Senate could rewrite New START to fix the flaws and change it into a treaty that serves U.S. interests. However, as a practical matter, rewriting New START essentially from scratch on the Senate floor would be difficult. The simpler and more likely approach would be for the Senate to withhold its consent to ratification and encourage the President to renegotiate the treaty.

A third approach is for the Senate to identify the specific flaws in or associated with New START and to fix those flaws with a series of amendments to the treaty itself or to the resolution of ratification.[3] This piecemeal approach can work, but it will be difficult and could lead to uncertain outcomes because some remedies to the identified flaws, par*ticularly those that are amendments to the resolu*tion of ratification, may only partially repair the specific flaws they address. Thus, this approach has inherent, serious risks. On the final vote, it will likely require the Senate to make a difficult judg*ment call on whether the amendments to the treaty and the resolution of ratification have sufficiently fixed the treaty’s critical flaws.

To demonstrate the difficulties and uncertainties in this approach, this paper identifies the 12 impor*tant flaws in or associated with New START and suggests a range of remedies that the Senate could apply to correct each flaw.

 

[Trajan]

it would help it they released the negotiation text of the discussions held most especially on the missile shield.

putin was supposed to make a statement on the shield when he got to Lisbon.... did he actually say anything?

 

[Madeline]

I'd like to know what START calls for before we analyze the machinations surrounding its adoption or not.

What is this concern about "missile defense"? You guys aren't looking to revive that Star Wars thingie, are you?

 

[Annie]

it would help it they released the negotiation text of the discussions held most especially on the missile shield.

putin was supposed to make a statement on the shield when he got to Lisbon.... did he actually say?

What negotiation text and what does Putin have to do with it. Links please.

 

[boedicca]

I'd love to see MaggieMae explain why the START Treaty should be approved.

 

[Annie]

I'd like to know what START calls for before we analyze the machinations surrounding its adoption or not.

What is this concern about "missile defense"? You guys aren't looking to revive that Star Wars thingie, are you?

Obama already covered that, where have you been? We are giving to Russia via NATO. Should make you happy.

 

[Trajan]

it would help it they released the negotiation text of the discussions held most especially on the missile shield.

putin was supposed to make a statement on the shield when he got to Lisbon.... did he actually say?

What negotiation text and what does Putin have to do with it. Links please.

the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.

one quickie...

Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.

At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?

The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.

In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.

Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com

the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.

 

[MaggieMae]

Here is what the letter Kyl and McConnell wrote to Obama on March 15th stipulated.

The article is dated April 9th, 2010.

"The Obama administration will need to meet three requirements if it expects favorable consideration of the START follow-on treaty," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. "The Senate will assess whether or not the agreement is verifiable, whether it reduces our nation's ability to defend itself and our allies from the threat of nuclear armed missiles, and whether or not this administration is committed to preserving our own nuclear triad."


Republicans say they have not yet been thoroughly briefed on the treaty but they are particularly interested in whether it would weaken America's ability to use missile defense technology. In a letter McConnell and his deputy, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., sent to Obama on March 15, they warned against linking offensive weapons and missile defense in the new agreement.


"As you know, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would ratify a treaty that includes such a linkage, including a treaty that includes unilateral declarations that the Russian Federation could use as leverage against you or your successors when U.S. missile defense decisions are made," McConnell and Kyl wrote.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama nuke treaty has a tough path ahead in Senate | Washington Examiner​

I am in 100% agreement...if these three benchmarks are not met, or if missile defense is linked with arms reduction, Republicans should not vote for it.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to ratify, including Republicans on the Committee, and considered that memo. The missile defense system was NOT included. In fact, at the G-20, NATO agreed to share the cost of the project. What the fuck does Kyle want, a personal love note from Medvedev promising on Scouts Honor that Russia will abide by the treaty?

This particular obstruction, for no obvious reason other than political, is only the first of many that will bring the Republicans right down to dirt level again where they found themselves before. THE PEOPLE won't put up with it.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'd love to see MaggieMae explain why the START Treaty should be approved.

Because right now, we have no verification going on. "Trust but Verify" are monumental words spoken by Ronald Reagan. The old treaty expired in December 2009, and it didn't have all these impossible caveats the new batch of Republican justsayno grouches want attached. It was fine for a Republican president, but not a Democrat. Imagine that...

 

[MaggieMae]

it would help it they released the negotiation text of the discussions held most especially on the missile shield.

putin was supposed to make a statement on the shield when he got to Lisbon.... did he actually say?

What negotiation text and what does Putin have to do with it. Links please.

the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.

one quickie...

Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.

At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?

The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.

In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.

Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com

the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.

As I recall, the Poles and the Czechs were opposed to the missile shield on their territory.

 

[daveman]

Here is what the letter Kyl and McConnell wrote to Obama on March 15th stipulated.

The article is dated April 9th, 2010.

"The Obama administration will need to meet three requirements if it expects favorable consideration of the START follow-on treaty," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. "The Senate will assess whether or not the agreement is verifiable, whether it reduces our nation's ability to defend itself and our allies from the threat of nuclear armed missiles, and whether or not this administration is committed to preserving our own nuclear triad."


Republicans say they have not yet been thoroughly briefed on the treaty but they are particularly interested in whether it would weaken America's ability to use missile defense technology. In a letter McConnell and his deputy, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., sent to Obama on March 15, they warned against linking offensive weapons and missile defense in the new agreement.


"As you know, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would ratify a treaty that includes such a linkage, including a treaty that includes unilateral declarations that the Russian Federation could use as leverage against you or your successors when U.S. missile defense decisions are made," McConnell and Kyl wrote.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama nuke treaty has a tough path ahead in Senate | Washington Examiner​

I am in 100% agreement...if these three benchmarks are not met, or if missile defense is linked with arms reduction, Republicans should not vote for it.

Yup. And liberal bitching about it should be rightly ignored.

It's funny -- they complain about "GOP lockstep", but want nothing more than the GOP to vote lockstep with Democrats.

 

[sangha]

Here is what the letter Kyl and McConnell wrote to Obama on March 15th stipulated.

The article is dated April 9th, 2010.

"The Obama administration will need to meet three requirements if it expects favorable consideration of the START follow-on treaty," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. "The Senate will assess whether or not the agreement is verifiable, whether it reduces our nation's ability to defend itself and our allies from the threat of nuclear armed missiles, and whether or not this administration is committed to preserving our own nuclear triad."


Republicans say they have not yet been thoroughly briefed on the treaty but they are particularly interested in whether it would weaken America's ability to use missile defense technology. In a letter McConnell and his deputy, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., sent to Obama on March 15, they warned against linking offensive weapons and missile defense in the new agreement.


"As you know, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would ratify a treaty that includes such a linkage, including a treaty that includes unilateral declarations that the Russian Federation could use as leverage against you or your successors when U.S. missile defense decisions are made," McConnell and Kyl wrote.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama nuke treaty has a tough path ahead in Senate | Washington Examiner​

I am in 100% agreement...if these three benchmarks are not met, or if missile defense is linked with arms reduction, Republicans should not vote for it.

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

This wingnut wants to pretend the repukes are blocking this because it doesn't meet certain benchmarks. The truth is, they don't want the senate to even discuss whether or not the treaty meets the benchmarks because they know it does

The treaty assures verification, does nothing to diminish our ability to defend outselves, and EXPANDS missile defense. That's why the wingnuts have to lie about it

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem as I see it is that the Republicans want a perfect, failsafe document with some Godlike guarantee that it will prevent a secret launch of a nuclear warhead. Puleeze, in order to get something like that, the Senate would need to work overtime every day for 10 years and at each phase, run it by the parties to the treaty. Nope, they are just being their usual pleasant obstructionists that we've all come to know so well.

 

[daveman]

What negotiation text and what does Putin have to do with it. Links please.

the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.

one quickie...

Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.

At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?

The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.

In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.

Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com

the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.

As I recall, the Poles and the Czechs were opposed to the missile shield on their territory.

In 2007, they were demanding it.