Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Did We Need a New START?

We'd like to ask the nine GOP Senators who have changed their vote for the passage of the START Treaty, how they have come to the assumption that America can rely on the Russians and particularly Vladimir Putin, to be decent, honest and reliable partners?  It hasn't been that long that we were engaged in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and although we've undergone some changes, even the break up of the USSR does not guarantee that they are any less mean spirited, cruel and avaricious. 

From our places of observation, what we see from the Obama administration is the rapid and increasing weakening of the United States of America and the growth and build up of Russia.  It is the same with those Muslims who've vowed to destroy America. It seems this president has a penchant for knuckling under to those who in time of war would present a greater threat.  We are in agreement with Senator McConnell who believes that a treaty of this magnitude needs more time to be discussed.  Instead the fate of our national security is being voted upon hurriedly urged by Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev.

The senators who said they would vote for the START treaty  include both Republican senators from Maine, Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins; both Republican senators from Tennessee, Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander; and Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Other Republicans who have said they will vote for the treaty are Sens. George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Robert F. Bennett of Utah and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking member of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. Voinovich and Mr. Bennett will be leaving the Senate at the end of the 111th Congress.

The vote for cloture passed by a 67-28 vote.  A two thirds majority is needed and the Senate intends to vote on Wednesday to ratify the treaty.

For further discussion of the issue we offer a very informative opinion by the editors of the National Review Online.

December 21, 2010 4:00 A.M.


In their frenzied attempt to push New START across the Senate finish line before Christmas, Democrats are relying on a strange mix of calm reassurances and ominous warnings. To hear them tell it, the arms-control treaty would not in any way jeopardize U.S. missile-defense programs — but failing to approve it in 2010 would do major damage to bilateral relations with Moscow. Moreover, Democrats argue, the urgency of inspecting Russian nuclear sites demands immediate ratification. None of these claims is persuasive.

This past weekend, 59 senators voted to reject the McCain-Barrasso amendment, which would have purported to remove the following language from the New START preamble: “Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.” Republicans fear that the “interrelationship” language could be used by Moscow to lobby for future limits on U.S. missile-defense capabilities. But Democrats note that the preamble text is nonbinding, and they insist that President Obama’s stated commitment to missile defense will trump any objections raised by the Kremlin.
Here’s the problem with that logic: Russia has vowed to withdraw from New START if America proceeds with an expansion of its antimissile systems. In other words, regardless of how White House officials view the nuclear accord, Moscow clearly sees it as a way to constrain U.S. defensive arms. If Obama were eventually forced to choose between saving the treaty and broadening missile defense, does anyone really believe he would pick the latter? During his first year in office, he slashed the missile-defense budget and ditched longstanding U.S. plans to construct a missile shield in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, he expressed his quixotic desire for “a world without nuclear weapons.” It strains credulity to imagine that Obama would be willing sacrifice his coveted arms-control pact in order to advance U.S. antimissile efforts.

As for Democratic warnings that the defeat of New START — or merely the postponement of its ratification until 2011 — would seriously harm U.S.-Russian relations, Moscow does not seem nearly that exercised. Here is Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking to a Russian news agency: “I would not say that the future of our bilateral relations is directly dependent on the outcome of New START ratification hearings.” Other Russian officials have made similar comments. We have our concerns about the Obama “reset” policy, which thus far has yielded very little in the way of Russian help on Iran; has damaged U.S. credibility in Eastern Europe and Eurasia; and has obliged Washington to soft-pedal its criticism of human-rights abuses in a veritable mafia state. But we fully expect the “reset” to move forward in 2011, regardless of when (or if) the Senate ratifies New START.

Finally, verifying the contents of Russia’s nuclear inventory is indeed an important matter of U.S. national security. So why aren’t Democrats pressing for stronger verification and compliance mechanisms? The relevant provisions in New START are substantially weaker than those contained in the original (1991) START agreement. It’s been a full year since U.S. inspectors last visited Russian nuclear facilities. Rather than pass a deeply flawed treaty with inadequate safeguards, senators should take the time to make sure that all loopholes have been closed and all procedural deficiencies have been corrected.

Of course, that would mean delaying a final debate until early 2011, which would trigger a cacophony of Democratic wailing. It was always going to be impossible for New START to receive adequate attention during a lame-duck session. At this late hour, there is no reason for wavering Republicans to buckle under White House pressure. They will get a much better deal next year than they will today. In its current form, the treaty deserves to die. We urge GOP senators to vote accordingly.

As do WE.


At September 8, 2015 at 11:47 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

ugg boots, louis vuitton, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton, louboutin shoes, uggs on sale, michael kors, longchamp outlet, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, gucci outlet, replica watches, michael kors outlet, tory burch outlet, ugg boots, louboutin outlet, tiffany jewelry, prada handbags, prada outlet, louis vuitton outlet, nike free, christian louboutin outlet, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet, burberry, oakley sunglasses, polo ralph lauren outlet, michael kors outlet, ugg boots, ray ban sunglasses, burberry outlet online, michael kors outlet, replica watches, louis vuitton, michael kors outlet, longchamp, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, nike air max, ugg boots, nike air max, tiffany and co, louboutin, nike outlet, ray ban sunglasses

At September 8, 2015 at 11:49 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

lululemon, north face, coach factory outlet, hogan, coach purses, nike air max, oakley pas cher, true religion jeans, kate spade handbags, ray ban uk, michael kors, burberry, nike roshe run, true religion outlet, hollister, hollister pas cher, ralph lauren pas cher, coach outlet, michael kors, hermes, sac longchamp, vanessa bruno, air max, michael kors, ray ban pas cher, air jordan pas cher, converse pas cher, lacoste pas cher, north face, new balance pas cher, louboutin pas cher, true religion jeans, timberland, tn pas cher, longchamp pas cher, nike blazer, michael kors, coach outlet, vans pas cher, air force, chanel handbags, nike free, sac guess, true religion jeans, kate spade outlet

At September 8, 2015 at 11:52 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

bottes ugg, oakley, marc jacobs, vans, doke gabbana outlet, pandora jewelry, thomas sabo, michael kors handbags, gucci, juicy couture outlet, swarovski crystal, replica watches, hollister, louis vuitton, louboutin, sac louis vuitton pas cher, juicy couture outlet, karen millen, nike air max, louis vuitton, pandora jewelry, iphone 6 cases, wedding dresses, converse outlet, timberland boots, montre pas cher, lancel, pandora charms, links of london, ugg boots uk, ugg pas cher, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet online, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, ralph lauren, swarovski, supra shoes, hollister, converse, pandora charms, toms shoes, louis vuitton, louis vuitton, ray ban, coach outlet

At September 8, 2015 at 11:55 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

ferragamo shoes, celine handbags, ghd, mont blanc, reebok shoes, asics running shoes, jimmy choo shoes, instyler, nike trainers, nike free run uk, beats by dre, nike air max, bottega veneta, soccer shoes, nike huarache, north face outlet, herve leger, insanity workout, longchamp, baseball bats, giuseppe zanotti, birkin bag, soccer jerseys, hollister, lululemon, nike roshe, valentino shoes, north face outlet, mulberry, nfl jerseys, nike air max, nike air max, mcm handbags, abercrombie and fitch, vans shoes, nike roshe, chi flat iron, mac cosmetics, ralph lauren uk, new balance, wedding dresses, babyliss, abercrombie and fitch, hollister, p90x workout

At December 7, 2015 at 7:17 PM , Blogger Minko Chen said...

kobe 9
nhl jerseys
nike air max
air max 90
mcm backpack
ugg outlet online
hermes belt for sale
ugg outlet store
ralph lauren outlet
louis vuitton outlet store
ralph lauren uk
juicy couture tracksuit
coach outlet
lacoste shirts
abercrombie and fitch
snow boots
true religion jeans
longchamp handbags
hermes outlet store

At January 3, 2018 at 10:10 PM , Blogger ankita said...

cctv security systems in delhi
pest control services
cp plus camera
termite control method


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home