AMERICA GETS PUNKED… Russians Say START Treaty Covers Antimissile Defense Systems
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 9:47 AM
They Told Us the START Treaty Could Not Wait – It Had to Be Signed Before Christmas–
The Obama Administration insisted that passing the START Treaty would not impact the US antimissile defense systems.
They were wrong.
The Russian Parliament announced this week that the START Treaty includes limitations on the US antimissile defense systems.
The Voice of Russia reported, via HotAir:
The State Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament) plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems’ deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the US and Russia, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs says.
“During the ratification of START in the US Congress the American lawmakers noted that the link between strategic offensive armed forces and antimissile defense systems is not juridically binding for the parties. They referred to the fact that this link was fixed only in the preamble of the document. Such an approach can be regarded as the US’ attempt to find an option to build up its strategic potential and the Russian lawmakers cannot agree with this,” Kosachev says.
We will deal with these interpretations. The first thing is that our American colleagues do not recognize the legal force of the treaty’s preamble. The preamble sets a link between strategic offensive arms and defensive arms. The second thing is an attempt to interpret certain provisions of the treaty unilaterally.
The Russian lawmakers insist that all the chapters of the treaty including the preamble are legally binding, which is a common norm of international law. It is not lawful to take certain provisions and to give them unilateral interpretations like the American senators do, Alexei Arbatov, a member of the Carnegie Scientific Council, says.
Once again, we were fooled by Obama – And, once again, America will pay the price.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
NEWLY DISCOVERED VIDEO Previously Scrubbed From YouTube Shows Trayvon Martin Participating in Local Fight Club
Published May 21, 2012 at 12:19 am - 60 Comments
Mikey commented:
Just another anti-American stance by our Loser in Chief. If it is AGAINST America’s interest, you can bet Obama, the Dems and the RINO’s will vote for it. Truly disgusting. Who couldn’t have seen this coming? Only morons.
gus commented:
Hurry hurry, if we don’t sign the PORKULOUS BILL children will die and old folks will be eating ALPO.
These FUKKTARDS are amateurs and anti-American. BAD COMBO.
Swifty commented:
And, hurry up and get ObamaCare through or old people will lose coverage and die. And I swear abortions will not be allowed because I’ll send you a note to that effect.
Chisum commented:
Obama and Hillary out and out LIED! They told us the Preamble didn’t mean anything. That it was just a formality. Tell that to Russia.
Even if the Duma doesn’t formally alter the treaty, though, Obama’s credibility will be shot. They will have been publicly caught arguing one thing to the Senate while apparently agreeing to its opposite with Russia. The next time Obama brings a treaty of any consequence and controversy to the Senate, don’t expect the Senate to just accept Obama’s word …. and don’t expect it to pass ratification, either.
burt commented:
If I knew it covered defense systems, why did no one else? Bull.
Granny commented:
HMMM – since this was approved by the Senate specifically on the basis that it would not affect anti-missile defense, it would seem to me that that approval is now invalidated.
RedBeard commented:
Just an unpleasant reminder about those Republicans who either aren’t smart enough to understand the issue, or who deliberately sided with Obama in the effort to weaken America.
Lugar, Voinovich, Brown (MA), Snowe, Collins, Alexander, Corker, Isakson, Murkowski, Cochran, and Bennett (UT).
We still have a great deal of work to do.
FedUp commented:
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse… the resident idiots outdo themselves.
Little_Johnny commented:
The Progressive SOP is to declare everything as an emergency and that “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it”.
mindy commented:
What will we do about the Dems before they destroy everything?
Luckyone commented:
The work of Dems and RINO’s. Thanks!
Ladue Pundit commented:
Obama is the chicken little president. The sky is always falling and he’s always there to save us.
I was never fooled and anyone who was is still a moron.
gus commented:
What does this treaty provide the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Any LIBTARDS OUT THERE??? PAGING LIBTARDS!!!!!!!!
Militant Conservative commented:
I knew this was in the bill. Am i THAT informed or are our representative THAT uninformed? I choose the former. I also know there are many that hate America. I love her, Democrat leadership hates America.
powder is dry.
Khan Krum commented:
Smart power! Obviously a result of the Hilldebeast’s перегрузка “overloading”.
Callipygian1 commented:
Gee… Gibbs sure seemed confident in his statement, didn’t he? He reminded me of “mumbles” from Dick Tracy cartoons.
More and more I consider the current administration to be traitors to the United States en masse. Group Collins, Snowe, Murkowski and the other RINO’s in with them as well.
L.E. Liesner commented:
This whole thing was planned and staged by the liberals and implemented with the help of the RINO’s in the Senate. Remember 2012 elections are on the way, it’s time for more House and Senate cleaning. There has never been a treaty with the Russians that we didn’t end up as losers.
Byzantine Bob commented:
#15:
перезагрузка!!!!!!!!!
:/
http://shininghappypeople.net/rwotd/blog4.php/2009/03/09/n
BurmaShave commented:
If the Russians say the START Treaty covers our Antimissile Defense Systems, then we can assume it does…so long as Obama is in office.
bigkahuna commented:
Screw The treaty…. Just give Russia another RESET button and tell them what treaty ?
How many treaties have been broken in the past ?
Finncrisp commented:
No story here.. no story here… Why would Obama do ANYTHING to strengthen America?
Up is down, in is out, full is empty with this crowd. Every action produces “shocking” truths after the fact. Cannot believe ONE WORD with this gang of thugs.
Is there anyone out there that does not understand this yet?
Richard Bagg commented:
People need to wake up.. This was an intentional act by the Idiot-in-chief’s handlers to leave the United States of America unprotected against the threat of Nuclear attack. Remember, the Idiots of congress as well as their families will be protected in hardened bunkers if an attack does happen. The remainder of the population will be left to fend for themselves. As for tricky dick Lugar the Senator from Indiana.. This is your last term in the Senate.. Enjoy it… You RINO MF….
Noah commented:
To be honest I thought it would give away all our defenses why did the stupid Repub and Rino’s know this? I think they did and as always don’t give a sh@# as long as their family and friends are covered they don’t need to worry about anyone else.
GrayRider commented:
This is exactly what CONSERVATIVES were warning about which all fell on deaf ears to the Democrats and RINOs who sould us out.
J commented:
I must remember to send a THANK YOU note to that wiz, Sen. Brown (MA)for agreeing to disarm the USA.
greenfairie commented:
Richard Bagg’s right. Obama is no different from the Rosenbergs or the other pre-Cold War American Communists who gave the Soviets the secrets for the bomb because they didn’t think it was fair that the U.S. had it but their beloved Josef Stalin did not. Obama wants to destroy American prestige and power, even if in the process it makes us less safe.
You know, it would be funny to see Nork missiles rain upon the Obama-loving, anti-American crowd on the West Coast but for the fact I also live there.
gus commented:
It’s as if fecking John “Winston” Lennoe was writing US policy from the grave.
Swifty commented:
George Soros: Time For US To Get Used To New World Order
http://www.breitbart.tv/george-soros-time-for-us-to-get-used-to-new-world-order/
xqqme commented:
The Russian lawmakers insist that all the chapters of the treaty including the preamble are legally binding, which is a common norm of international law.
The multitude of lawyers in Congress knew this. If they claim they didn’t, they are incompetent.
Bunni commented:
Of course we can’t believe ANYTHING obamalamadingdong and his clueless admin says!
There needs to be investigations into this, and EVERYTHING they have done, from day one.
Beef commented:
America was not fooled by Obama. It was very clear what this treaty was. Those who wanted America protected by missile defense systems knew this was a bad treaty, and opposed it. Those who wish to weaken America did not want America protected by a missile defense treaty and supported it.
Everything Obama is about has been on the table from the beginning. He said he was going to “Change” America, and that is exactly what he has done.
If you add together the people who hate America with the people who don’t care enough to think about things, you have a majority. That’s how a nation is destroyed.
It’s getting to the point that the damage is reaching a level that may be irreversible.
vote for pedro commented:
Diane Valencen and whitehouse.gov repository hardest hit.
Stuart commented:
We have to ratify the treaty so we can know what’s in it. Right Nancy?
Proud american commented:
All of you who are opposing the treaty are in outright opposition to the U.S. military, down the line.
A few examples: the treaty is strongly supported by the general who runs the U.S. missile defense programs, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and retained by Obama.
It is supported by the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking uniformed military official in the country, appointed by President Bush and retained by Obama.
It is supported by every living commander of U.S. nuclear forces, the individuals responsible for exercising that terrible power should the need arise.
Who on this list has any basis on which to question the judgment of those brave soldiers in uniform, who have dedicated their lives to protecting the United States?
vote for pedro commented:
Consensus! Obviously, the Russian Duma doesn’t agree with ∅’s interpetation. Don’t you find that troubling? BTW, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, remember?
Rock commented:
Comrade Obama screws America again. This is America’s future under him and his merry band of traitors. Back in the 60′s the cowards motto of, Better Red than Dead, the enemy of the U.S. was (and still is) the Soviet Union, now it would seem so is the Socialist Democratic Party of Obama. Hate does not even come close describing for my contempt and distrust for this administration.
Chisum commented:
Vote for Pedro,
Proud American is saying that we are anti-military, anti-American, Anti-Obama, etc.
I’m waiting for her to whip out the race card.
Come on, cupcake. You know you want to! Let out your inner libtard.
Chisum commented:
Who on this list has any basis on which to question the judgment of those brave soldiers in uniform, who have dedicated their lives to protecting the United States?
=======================================================
Maybe because they’re WRONG?
Cupcake, take a deep deep sniff of your smelling salts.
You seem vaporish.
avery commented:
Redbeard at 7# is right need to get rid of these that Vote for this Bill
vote for pedro commented:
Shaddup!!!-Proud American, International Arms Policy Jeenus
Proud american commented:
Don’t argue w/ me, argue with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, appointed by President Bush, retained by President Obama, and another supporter of the treaty.
Why are you all listening to the Russian Duma rather than the U.S. military?
You are saying the Russian Duma is right and the U.S. military is wrong? That’s an interesting position to take! Whose side are you on?
Henry Hawkins commented:
“Who on this list has any basis on which to question the judgment of those brave soldiers in uniform, who have dedicated their lives to protecting the United States?”
I do. Your list of formidables proceeded on the belief that the anti-defense missile language in the preamble was nonbinding.
What you advocate is blind trust in anyone connected to the military. Not even the people in the military do that.
vote for pedro commented:
Can you point to anyone who wrote that? I wrote that the Russian Duma’s interpretation was different that ∅’s, and asked if you found that troubling.
“Shaddup” isn’t an effective debating strategy, but you seem comfortable with it. So, rant on with your bad self!
Rock commented:
Given the Lefts unequivocal hate for America and her Military, any attempt by them to accuse the Right of such is nothing more than a joke. These folks just have not comes to terms with the fact that they no longer have the vale of closet Communist to hide behind.
Proud american commented:
But Henry, the U.S. military – which develops, deploys, maintains, and operates U.S. missile defenses – states that the preamble is non-binding.
A Russian statement is that – a Russian statement. Not a fact.
The fact is, the U.S. military will continue to develop, deploy, maintain and operate U.S. missile defenses. If, as a result, Russia decides to withdraw from or not ratify the treaty, then it is a loss for all our security. But it does not mean the treaty is bad.
bitterclinger commented:
Jim, Gateway readers weren’t punked. We were on to this poseur before his immaculation. It was the 52% of the ijits who put him in office who have been punked.
Proud american commented:
Pedro, Obama’s interpretation is the same as that of the U.S. military. The U.S. military was involved in the negotiations of the treaty from the get-go. So, if you are saying that the Russian Duma’s interpretation is right and Obama’s is wrong, then you are also saying that the U.S. military is wrong.
Whose side are you on?
Ladue Pundit commented:
bitterclinger commented:
Jim, Gateway readers weren’t punked. We were on to this poseur before his immaculation. It was the 52% of the ijits who put him in office who have been punked.
***********
They don’t even know they were punked. They’re still tooling around with Obot stickers on their cars.
Chisum commented:
#40 January 4, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Proud american commented:
Don’t argue w/ me, argue with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, appointed by President Bush, retained by President Obama, and another supporter of the treaty.
Why are you all listening to the Russian Duma rather than the U.S. military?
You are saying the Russian Duma is right and the U.S. military is wrong? That’s an interesting position to take! Whose side are you on?
==================================================
Why are we arguing? Because they are WRONG! This treaty is one sided and short sighted!
Why did they lie to us?
Obviously the Preamble is key to this treaty. We were told it wasn’t. Do you get that?
And all the while BO et al were assuring us that the Preamble had no teeth they were negotiating exactly the opposite with Russia BEHIND THE BACK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
They are liars and never to be trusted. Not one of the people in this administration is to be trusted.
The last sentence in this article says it all:
John McCain offers addition to START
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen sent a letter to Senators Monday assuring them that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defenses.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46636.html
vote for pedro commented:
Let me try and clarify my point. The US government(which includes the military) and the Russian Duma’s interpretation of the treaty are different. Are you with me so far?
Since we already signed it, I find this development troubling, don’t you?
Henry Hawkins commented:
Proud American: “But it does not mean the treaty is bad.”
Never said the treaty is bad. What I’m saying is that obviously the treaty was approved by the US military and ratified by the US Congress before terms were agreed upon, because the Obama adminstration either lied or was ineptly wrong about it.
I would say that, generally, yes, any treaty of which all terms are not in agreement is a ‘bad’ treaty.
I would also say that you can be the finest military in the history of the world, but if your own C in C will lie to you, your greatness is unfairly but effectively negated.
It will be a while before any nonpoliticized military high staff endorse an Obama claim again.
mcc commented:
Any high level appointee “retained” by BO (we’re so eagerly informed) from Bush’s administration is suspect in my book. We’ve more than our share of enemies within.
Equally suspect is someone who capitalizes “Proud” but not “American” when describing himself. Especially while the rest of his writing shows no such carelessness.
Begs his favorite question: “Whose side are you on?”
vote for pedro commented:
Proud American, do you thing the administration should have released the negotiation documents?
Rock commented:
Might ask of Proud American, just what does Immoral Liberal mean? Just asking.
Spike commented:
When has the obomination ever opened his Rib strippers and not spit out a lie
SSBN 627(B) commented:
Every day a new outrage. We are on the High Road to Hell, we need Ronald Wilson Reagan behind the wheel but we’ve got ‘Good Old Joe’ Stalin; Harry Hopkins and FDR are dancing a jig on the grave of American Greatness.
Three years underwater for this?
Libtards lionize JFK but they wouldn’t nominate him now. Too much of a hawk. Way too anti-Soviet.
Mary commented:
vote for pedro, the “Bilateral Consultative Commission” has an ominous ring to it. Am I wrong in thinking that it will be able to impose further restrictions without senate approval?
Proud American commented:
Chisum, you are making my point for me.
“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen sent a letter to Senators Monday assuring them that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defenses.”
So, you would take the word of a Russian Duma member over that of the U.S. military?
Who says the treaty is short-sighted and wrong? Who are you listening too?
I’m listening to the advice of the U.S. military, to Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, to George Bush’s secretary of state, in fact to every living secretary of state who worked for a Republican. They all support the treaty.
(More than happy to capitalize “American” – sorry I didn’t in the first place!)
Proud American commented:
Rock, what does Pointless Question mean? Just asking.
Proud American commented:
Henry, you seem like a reasonable person, but you are missing the key point. The U.S. military’s interpretation is what will guide the U.S. military.
I’ve met the guy who represented the U.S. military in the negotiations. Very smart guy. He loves this treaty because it preserves enormous U.S. advantages in terms of upload potential for our nuclear-armed missiles, while doing nothing to limit U.S. missile defenses.
So, what a Russian Duma member says does not affect us – what affects us are the verification provisions in the treaty, and the binding limits it imposes on warheads and launchers.
Anyone can say whatever they like (and clearly folks will) but what matters is in the binding provisions of the treaty.
Rock commented:
Google Proud American and you find reference that of Immoral Liberal is a alternate name used, is that you or not, remember, and if so why?
Chisum commented:
PA,
What part of this don’t you get?
The Russian Parliament announced this week that the START Treaty includes limitations on the US antimissile defense systems.
Do you think that the Russians were unclear in their negotiations with the US?
And please note at my earlier link the changes that were demanded by Sen. McCain, Kyl, etc. Changes that were demanded AFTER the Obama Admin. and Russians had agreed on terms.
Who says the treaty is short-sighted and wrong? Who are you listening too?
I’m not listening to anyone. I’m reading. Here’s one source:
Senate Must Scrutinize Deeply Flawed New START Verification Measures
http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Senate-Must-Scrutinize-Deeply-Flawed-New-START-Verification-Measures
One sided START treaty
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/one_sided_start_treaty.html
And then there’s this:
But the treaty does address an issue it should not interfere with: missile defense. On Moscow’s demand, the following clauses have been added to the treaty:
1. An acknowledgment of a link between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. This implies that American missile defense systems must be limited and reduced lest they undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent (Paragraph 9 of the Preamble).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/why_the_senate_should_reject_t.html
Yet the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen sent a letter to Senators Monday assuring them that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defenses.
And THE ADMINISTRATION ASSURED US that THE PREAMBLE IS NON-BINDING!
mcc commented:
Dear Proud:
I bet you’re sorry. Nice touch: no caps on “Secretary of State” — three times!
Now, do you agree we have enemies within…or more specifically, a liar in the Oval Office?
Proud American commented:
Rock, I googled Proud American and found a film called Proud American. I have no idea what you are talking about.
vote for pedro commented:
IIRC, the treaty needed to pass without being amended, or the agreement was void and would require renegotiation. That is why I stated this development was troubling.
Proud American commented:
mcc, one doesn’t capitalize secretary of state unless one is using it as a title, with the person’s name.
Such as: “President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, is a strong supporter of the New START agreement.” (This also has the benefit of being true.)
But if you are just the title, you don’t, such as. “President George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state supports New START.” (This is also true, his name is Jim Baker.
And whether or not President Obama is a liar or not is irrelevant here – I’m not taking his word for anything. He didn’t negotiate the treaty. The U.S. military, the folks at the Pentagon, and the folks at the Department of State did. He just signed it, when they advised him to do so.
Proud American commented:
Chisum, you are relying on statements from the Russian Duma, an inside-DC-based “think tank” that opposed President Ronald Reagan’s Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (known as the INF Treaty) and a blog edited by someone who says is he as “recovering academic” (see http://www.americanthinker.com/static/about_us.html)
I’m relying on statements from former and past military officials and former Cabinet-level Republican officials.
You pick your allies, I’ll pick mine.
mcc commented:
Thanks for confirming who you are.
A devoted, proud American would take any opportunity to state the obvious: this administration cannot be trusted. Nor can you.
Our very survival depends on facing that reality.
Rock commented:
Proud American, I found a threat where someone using Proud American was accused of also being known as Immoral Liberal. And thought I might question you on that. However further checking on your post suggest that your are indeed Conservative. Sorry for the distrust.
Having said that, I will add many here are not trusting of anything this Administration does. Its well known they use people then spit them out. Next As for this thread, it is not a matter of trust of the Military, end of day the treaty is either poorly worded or vague enough for Russia to use it to make America look weak, and/or foolish. Not exactly something they are new at. Obama’s administration signed off on it he owns it, the buck stops at his desk. I would also suggest tremendous admiration for those that serve in the Combat Arms and those who support them does not automatically translate to trust of the Harvard educated type that roam the halls of D.C.
Rock commented:
Oops, “I found a threat where someone” should have been , “I found a thread where someone”
Proud American commented:
Chisum, show me an American legal scholar of any repute who says “OMG, the Russians are right – we have limited our missile defenses!”
You can find all sorts of folks who will say all kinds of things, but facts are facts. The pre-amble is not binding and, I should add, would not limit missile defenses even it did. It merely states that offense and defense are linked. Kinda like football in that way.
PS – apologies for the typos in the previous post! Should read “someone who says he is a . . ” and “from former military” not “former and past military”. (Stamp out and abolish redundancy!)
Blacque Jacques Shellacque commented:
They were wrong.
Since when has that ever stopped Democrats?
They can be wrong on everything, and they’d still insist on having their way.
Chisum commented:
PA,
You are no conservative. You use typical liberal arguments.
For instance, when presented with facts and backup of those facts, you don’t address the facts. Instead, you attack the source that cited the facts.
I have presented facts.
You have presented…feelings.
Proud American commented:
mcc, I repeat, I am not taking the word of this administration.
Former President George H.W. Bush supports this treaty, and called on the Senate to do so.
Every living Republican secretary of state supports this treaty.
Six former secretaries of defense support this treaty.
Every living former commander of U.S. nuclear forces supports this treaty.
None of those people have any reason to do any favors for this administration.
The opponents include a think tank that opposed President Ronald Reagan’s INF Treaty, some bloggers, and a few senators.
As I told Chisum, you pick your allies, I’ll pick mine.
Chisum commented:
Feel-wings
Nothing more than feeel-wiiings
Proud American commented:
Chisum, your “facts’ aren’t facts – they are the statements of discredited “experts” who – and I’ll repeat myself here – opposed President Ronald Reagan’s INF Treaty.
I agree with you when you cite those who have some authority, such as the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
vote for pedro commented:
Then why not let the senators, who have the RESPONSIBILITY of ratifying the treaty, review the negotiating documents? BTW, I don’t think thirty-two senators constitutes “a few.”
RedBeard commented:
Either this is a flawed treaty, or it is not. The Russians latest finagling certainly points to one flaw, at the very least. It might be more profitable to address that particular hole in the boat rather than to deny that it’s there based upon how many people in high places wanted to buy the boat.
Chisum commented:
Oh look!
SURPRISE!!!!!
Shortly after Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev signed the New START agreement this morning, the Kremlin released the following statement:
The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defence capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.
Consequently, the exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 14 of the Treaty include increasing the capabilities of the United States of America’s missile defence system in such a way that threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.
Section 3 of Article 14 reads:
Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.
So basically Russia has already informed the United States that this Treaty is dead letter if the Obama administration develops missile defense capabilities in any way. The Obama administration may have scrapped land based missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, but Defense Secretary Roberts Gates’ 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review has made it clear that “further developing proven” missile defense capabilities is “a critical national security priority.”
As New York University professor of Russian Studies and History Stephen Cohen told MSNBC just seconds after Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the agreement: “Politically it is an unstable treaty.”
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=30821
Feel-wings
midlandewing commented:
Well are you surprised at anything that lying sack of sh*t say’s and I’d like to hit Gibbs in the face with a two by four.
Alana commented:
“Obama wants to destroy American prestige and power, even if in the process it makes us less safe.”
There is no “even if.” He wants us less safe. That’s why he’s suing one of the states for trying to defend the borders.
He thinks we can “absorb” attacks. Actually, he’s hoping to have some attacks to absorb. That way he can have more crises to take advantage of (in oppressive ways), and with any luck, will end in diminishing the U.S. to the level of, say, Kenya, which he considers only “fair.”
mcc commented:
You’re allied with this administration. You can’t bring yourself to criticize your “President Obama.” But what will you easily diminish?
“American” – that’s what.
You’re detail-oriented enough to spend countless lines describing the propriety of capitalizing other words – but only correct your glaring omission when it’s pointed out to you.
We’re a nation overpopulated with deceivers. Ones who play games like this, “I’m not taking the word of this administration.” I asked you if we have a liar in the Oval Office. And you won’t give me a straight answer.
That’s all anyone reading this thread needs to know.
valerie commented:
Ya think any American in either the Senate or the Executive Branch actually read the treaty before it was signed?
I’d ask.
squeaky commented:
[During the Cold War, launched the nuclear freeze movement, a scheme that would have frozen Soviet nuclear and military superiority in place] locking the soviet nuclear and military superiority into place…hmmmm? hey, wait a minute… next thing i’ll find out is that she wanted to lock us into the toothless hound position.
[Dr. Randall Caroline Forsberg has been described as a “peace scholar,” having spent three decades urging American disarmament and the destruction of U.S. nuclear weapons arsenals. She received a B.A. degree in English from Columbia University, ..]
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1526
http://www2.fiu.edu/~fcf/cuba62secrets.html
Rock commented:
The length the liberal whores go do to defend this lying Socialist traitor, have no bounds. What is amusing is they are of the misguided and delusional believe that they will change minds here.
Chisum good job at exposing the charade. Unfortunately I got owned. My post on it (Proud American or Immoral Liberal must have hit a nerve, the source no longer comes up.
Henry Hawkins commented:
Now let’s factor in that the Obama administration refused to release any of the notes and documents accrued during the New START negotiations. The US Congress had to take thier word for it. Unbelievably, given the Obama administration’s record of lying, they bought it, and also bought that time was of the essence, hurry, vote before Christmas!
Now we have an international incident brewing and Obama has made himself look like an idiot, bringing along everyone who supported it and/or voted for it under the premise – now clearly a lie – that our missile defenses weren’t on the table.
Why then is the anti-defense missile even in the preamble if the Russians don’t consider it important?
The message is clear and it’s hurting Obama – if you want to look like a fool, hitch your wagon to anything with the Obama label on it.
This crap severely injures America’s place in the world and our interactions with other nations.
Henry Hawkins commented:
Oops, should’ve read: “Why then is the anti-defense missile LANGUAGE even in the preamble…”
Chisum commented:
Rock,
Have you ever heard a conservative (much less a liberal) profess such unadulterated, blind and unswerving belief in the military brass?
Obviously the liberal troll thought to get to us by professing such belief and then proceed to push its liberal nonsense. What a maroon!
Sing it with me:
FEEL-WINGS
NOTHING MORE THAN FEEL-WINGS
ogee commented:
It’s a mute point. All bills signed by the usurper in chief are null and void. Wait until the ^%$# hits the fan.
Rock commented:
Chisum
Oh well still a good day just the same, the more they play the more we learn. Not winning hearts and minds here just contempt for their immoral ways.
ogee commented:
It’s time to call them by the name they wish not to be called. MARXIST/LENONISTS.
They want to be called progressives or liberals to fool the people of their true identity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsTeXRQKvRI
ogee commented:
Soros says we are on the verge of dictatorial state. Dec 27, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWbjin4ecWc
Chisum commented:
Rock,
We keep fighting the good fight, my friend.
That’s all we can do.
Rock commented:
So could this thread be used for this tweet, Liberal Troll confirms high up’s in Pentagon complicit in flawed Missie treaty?
Francesca commented:
WHEN is all O’s secret stuff going to come out! Which of his actions are impeachible offenses?
Asimplekindamansomethingyouloveandunderstand commented:
I think ya’ll … you’uns… yooz guys ought-ta step back, breath in the airs of Holy Rus, and take a meditative Pill of Chill..
http://www.allsaintsofamerica.org/martyrs/nmruss.html
TWEEET!!!!!!
(I Chronicles 1:52…)
Don’t be …
PUNNNNNNnk’DDDDDDDt’!
(by the devil…)
Hawwwww! Gahhhhh! “Gus”!!!! MiliTARDConservative…! (P.S. “powder is dry”… a mantra that evokes much perspicacious preparation, and shows a patriot ever-readiness for confronting Cromwell and his New Model Army!!)
Asimplekindamansomethingyouloveandunderstand commented:
Aholibamah. Ohlibamah… Gah!
Proud American commented:
I’m on the side of President George H.W. Bush, and promoting the the legacy and vision of President Ronald Reagan.
Oh, by the way, every single ally we have supported the treaty publicly along with every other country in the world except one.
The only country to oppose the treaty: Iran. So, y’all have fun commiserating with the Iranian government, your best international allies.
Y’all can do and say whatever you like, but that’s the facts.
Have a nice day, I’m out.
Chisum commented:
Oh look, another liberal tactic-moral relevance.
So even though we may both oppose something, although for very different reasons, we are equally culpable.
Riiiight!
Feel-wings.
Nothing more than feeeeel-wiiinnngggsss
Asimplekindamansomethingyouloveandunderstand commented:
I SAID… Gah!
Asimplekindamansomethingyouloveandunderstand commented:
Whom are you addressing, “Pwoud Amewicuhn” and Chizzum…? Is the sacrifice of the Holy New Martrys and Confessors of Russia somehow “relativism?
Asimplekindamansomethingyouloveandunderstand commented:
Pay attention to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m posting comments on a bog and need Validation!!!
eeeeeeeGahhh!! (White Powdah is Dwyyy)….
Callipygian1 commented:
“ogee commented:
It’s time to call them by the name they wish not to be called. MARXIST/LENONISTS.
They want to be called progressives or liberals to fool the people of their true identity.”
Ogee, you spelled it wrong; they should be called LINENISTS because they’re full of SHEEEEET…
either that, or Leninists…
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Asimplekindamansomethingyouloveandunderstand commented:
Feee-Wings….
Asimplekindamansomethingyouloveandunderstand commented:
I feel very undergarment protected here, and that My Voice Is Missing.
See ya’!!!
vote for pedro commented:
You’re the one who started insinuating that anyone who disagreed with signing the treaty was somehow unpatriotic and anit-military. When I pointed out that both parties to the treaty were in disagreement, you insinuated that I was siding with the Russian Duma. I wrote it was troubling without placing blame on anyone.
You haven’t addressed a very valid question: shouldn’t the senators who wanted clarification be given access to the negotiating documents prior to voting for ratification? Instead, you rattle off a list of everyone who supports the treaty. Since they aren’t voting on it, they’re welcome to their expert opinion, but I want my senator to be more than a rubber stamp when it comes to arms negotiation.
Henry Hawkins commented:
Gawd, I love the internet.
vote for pedro commented:
Yeah, only on the internet can you find someone that claims to personally know an individual involved in negotiating the START Treary, vouches for the negotiators intelligence, and states the President just signs it without regard to the agreement’s details. Yet, the senators, charged with ratifying the treaty, have no right to review the negotiating documents in order to satisfy their concerns regarding what may or may not be binding language contained in the agreement. You’d think that the brilliant negotiator would be proud to exhibit his expertise and competence in drafting the treaty, reassuring the senators that their vote was well vetted.
Tis a wonderful place, the internets.
ogee commented:
Lenon linen lenin. who cares. You know who he is… I don’t have time to edit on a blog. No one here cares except you and the other obots.
Now put your dick tion ary of dis tract ion away and pay attention to the truth obats.
vote for pedro commented:
Treary=Treaty
Aaarrrggghh!
Anon commented:
(1) The #1 nuke idea by the Obama administration is, “Zero Nukes In The World,” in reality: “Zero US Nukes,” and deeply present in the Nuclear Posture Review 2010 (NPR 2010), http://www.defense.gov/npr/ , in the US-Russia New Start Treaty, as well as, theirs and Congress´un-American NO!!!, towards new US nuclear weapons systems, and/or new US nuclear modernization, new US delivery systems, enhancement of US missile defense, and full scale US underground testing.
But, this dangerous idea, and argument for, “Zero Nukes In The World,” i.e. “Zero US Nukes,” is NOT NEW, it´s already DEEPLY ROOTED in “The Communist Takeover Of America – 45 Declared Goals,” January 10, 1963, at http://www.commieblaster.com/dl/Communist-Takeover-America.pdf , with an in-depth analyse of the document, at http://www.commieblaster.com/news/communist-takeover-plan.html , as well as, http://www.commieblaster.com/ has an in-depth analyse of the Obama administration, and its purpose of, “Exposing Communists in US Gov´t.”
Conclusion
Say No To Zero US Nukes
Say No To NPR 2010
Say No To The New Start Treaty
Say Yes To New US Nukes
Say Yes To US Missile Defense
Say Yes To US Underground Testing
(2) “Top 10 Reasons Not to Trust Russia,” This is a Factsheet on Russia and Eurasia, Published on July 29, 2010, at http://heritage.org/Research/Factsheets/Top-10-Reasons-Not-to-Trust-Russia , short summary:
1. “A Long History of Arms Control Violations.
2. The West is Still Their #1 Threat.
3. Helping Iran and North Korea.
4. Still Building a Nuclear Arsenal.
5. Not in Compliance on Other Treaties.
6. No Regard for Georgia Independence.
7. Respons Offensively to Defensive Measures.
8. Ties to Terrorist Organizations.
9. Natural Gas as a Political Weapon.
10. An Authoritarian Regime.”
Conclusion
Don´t TRUST Russia, and say NO to the New Start Treaty. (My remark: Previously posted by me at http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2010/08/the_left_pushes_start_with_bli.html on August 4, 2010 8:58 PM.)
Proud American commented:
OK, Pedro, I will address the question. I was reluctant because it actually is complicated, and that makes it hard to do in this form. But we’re among friends, right?
For the vast majority of arms control treaties, the negotiating record has NOT been provided. The reasoning is this: negotiations reveal confidential information – desires, preferences, tactics, etc – and each side prefers to keep it that hidden. If for every treaty the record is revealed, then it makes future negotiations harder, as each side will be less willing to provide such information if they know it will become public.
The last time the Senate Foreign Relations Committee received a negotiating record, it specifically stated that this was not to set a precedent, and that in future the administration should be entitled to keep them secret.
To compensate for this, the administration provided a detailed, classified summary of the record to senators, in particular focused on the missile defense questions. In addition, the Foreign Relations committee got testimony from a number of military officials, including Sec. of Defense Gates, that there are no secret agreements hidden in the negotiating record. Finally, you also have the public statements of the head of the missile defense program (among others), who committed to deploying missile defenses regardless of reaction from Russia.
All that said, I do understand the desire for senators to see the record (heck, i’d love too!) but there is both strong precedent and compensating factors listed above that in my mind make it acceptable.
And, yes, I do know the negotiator who represented the Joint Chiefs. I also know the woman who lead the State department team and was overall in charge, and the man who represented the Pentagon (an Obama appointee, unlike the Joint Chiefs rep.). I even took a class from him in graduate school on nuclear forces. In one class, he listed, from memory, the Russian name, U.S. designation, date of entry into force, approximate # deployed, and warhead yield for every Russian nuclear weapon system. (I’d give you their names, but somebody would stalk them.)
For mcc, yes, Obama is a liar. He’s a politician. But I’m a liar too, and I’ll bet you are too. It’s pretty much human nature. You don’t trust anything Obama says, and I hear that. I was merely trying to point out that, given that, a lot of other folks, who you might be inclined to at least consider believing, do support the treaty. If Obama says something, does that mean that every other person who says it must be wrong? I don’t think that makes sense.
Okay, yes, I did understate the President’s role in the treaty. He did more than just sign it. His team asked the military to do an analysis of what warhead level they would be comfortable with. They did analysis of a wide range of levels, but did not make a final recommendation. Instead, the administration asked them if 1,500 warheads was acceptable, and they said yes.
For Henry, it is unfortunate that some Russian leaders do not agree with the U.S. interpretation of the treaty. In fact, it sucks. I wish Russia was a nice, friendly country and that their leaders were nice, reasonable people. But they aren’t. They are mostly mean, nasty bastards who I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw them.
But, sadly, they have the ability to kill every man, woman and child on the planet, and I like that even less. So I’m willing to live with – in fact strongly support – this flawed treaty because it will verifiably reduce the number of nuclear weapons able to destroy the United States.
Isn’t that something we can all support?
Henry Hawkins commented:
No, it is not. Are you frickin’ blind? Deaf? What?
1) The preamble says US anti-defense mssiles are on the table.
2) The Obama administration says they are nonbinding, that the Russians understand this.
3) The Russians say they are binding.
4) The US Congress, asked to ratify this treaty, pointed out 1, 2, and 3.
5) The US Congress asked to see the negotian notes, some members doubting the Russians, some doubting the Obama administration’s word on it.
6) The US Congress was denied access to the negotiation documents, in essence were told ‘trust us’ by the Obama administration re: American missile defenses and the preamble language.
7) The US Congress trusted them and ratified the treaty.
9) There is zero way the Obama negotiating team did not know that the Russians considered the preamble binding. No way at all. Not possible. They lied to the US Congress.
10) They refuse to release the negotiation documents because they will reveal the lie. They will reveal the Russians considered the preamble legally binding all along.
This is what you call – and I’ll type slowly here, that you might finally get it – this is what you call a M A J O R S C R E W U P by the Obama administration and those in the US Congress who believed them on faith.
Proud American commented:
1) The preamble says US anti-defense mssiles are on the table.
Me: No, it doesn’t. Here is what is says:
“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”
That doesn’t put ANYTHING on the table. It acknowledges a fact. Like in football, the offense effects the defense, and vice-versa.
2) The Obama administration says they are nonbinding, that the Russians understand this.
Me: Agreed
3) The Russians say they are binding.
Me: Some Russians claim they are binding. Some Americans claim Britney Spears doesn’t lip-sync. So what?
4) The US Congress, asked to ratify this treaty, pointed out 1, 2, and 3.
5) The US Congress asked to see the negotian notes, some members doubting the Russians, some doubting the Obama administration’s word on it.
Me: Some members asked to see it. Others understood why it was not appropriate.
6) The US Congress was denied access to the negotiation documents, in essence were told ‘trust us’ by the Obama administration re: American missile defenses and the preamble language.
Me: They were given a detailed classified summary of the missile defense negotiating record, and the sworn testimony of a number of military officials who were first appointed by President Bush.
7) The US Congress trusted them and ratified the treaty.
The Russians are refusing to ratify the treaty because they consider the preamble language re: US missile defenses binding.
Me: The Russians will ratify the treaty; I will bet you a lot of money on that.
9) There is zero way the Obama negotiating team did not know that the Russians considered the preamble binding. No way at all. Not possible. They lied to the US Congress.
Me: You are relying on the statements of a Russian Duma member, not on the Russians who negotiated the treaty. Who trusts the Russians anyway?
10) They refuse to release the negotiation documents because they will reveal the lie. They will reveal the Russians considered the preamble legally binding all along.
Me: That is your speculation.
This is what you call – and I’ll type slowly here, that you might finally get it – this is what you call a M A J O R S C R E W U P by the Obama administration and those in the US Congress who believed them on faith.
Me: The treaty will enter into force. Russia will be forced to verifiably reduce the number of warheads on their missies. The U.S. will continue to deploy missile defenses, and Russians will continue to complain, whine, warn of catastrophe, and do nothing of any consequence.
Count on it.
Joanne commented:
Nothing Obama signs is legal – he is an usurper.
Botox Pelosi commented:
I blame the 14 so called Republicans who voted to ratify this treaty more than I do Hussein or progressive liberal Democrats.
You expect BS like this from anti-American Hussein and Progressives, this is just totally inexcusable from the Republicans for taking the bait and ratifying.
mcc commented:
For the Proud one:
Oh, my! You’ve said it: Obama’s a liar. “He’s a politician” afterall…. and we’re to believe he’s just your average politician. Or that he lies like anyone lies. But that was courageous of you considering:
Rule #1: NEVER say anything negative about the Narcissist-in-Chief. (Not to worry, though, you did a masterful job of softening the blow. That term is not to be confused with Barry’s use of it.)
Now, it’s true: I am a liar. I was thinking of it the other day; I told two people I couldn’t attend their Christmas parties because I’d made other plans. Not true. I also told a friend I loved her gift when I didn’t.
What was the intent of my lies versus Obama’s lies? Does he lie so he won’t hurt someone or does he lie in order to impose something he knows is not wanted by the people most affected by it?
He lies – habitually – about things of tremendous consequence to impose on a people what he knows they would never want if they were fully informed. (Now how else can he get away with it?!)
He is, therefore, an enemy within. (Bet you can’t say that!)
You boldly state Russia’s leaders are “…mean, nasty bastards who I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw them.” (That’s about how I’d describe POTUS and his administration, btw.)
Yet, you’d enter into a contract with those very people. (Strange, indeed, from my perspective. Oh, there I go again, protecting somebody’s feelings: not strange, actually…but quite stupid, to tell the truth.)
You see, I would refuse to work with Team BO on anything. Period. That’s what I do with nasty bastards I can’t trust.
Hmmm….You wouldn’t be telling one of your lies, would you?
Badger commented:
Proud american commented
3) The Russians say they are binding.
Me: Some Russians claim they are binding. Some Americans claim Britney Spears doesn’t lip-sync. So what?
————————-
I can tell you so what: the Russians will cough and Obama and his followers will fall over, the generals, political animals they are, will fall in behind Obama. Then the US missile defenses will be smacked down by the treaty. That’s what’ll happen.
You forget: Obama has no spine, no backbone, no balls. His followers are the same and the generals, well, who supported the ridiculous RoE and helped forcing them down the throats of the troops, effectively preventing them fighting a war the way a war should be fought?
The generals are too worried about what the media will write about them and what could possibly hamper their ascend into political spheres after retiring from active service.
Face it, all the good and great US generals are either dead or have long since retired.
vote for pedro commented:
Alright Proud American, since you’ve taken on a more respecful, less condescending tone, I’ll play along.
Most here are skeptical(understandably so) of any arms, or non-proliferation agreements due to past treaty violations before the ink dried on the document. I understand that diplomacy is very subtle and nuanced, and countries entering into treaties may publicly make proclamations for consumption of their citizenry, which seem contradictory to the spirit of the agreement.
However, unless the framework of the agreement establishes verifiable milestones that are STRICTLY adhered to, then the rest is just nonsense, i.e., we’re getting played again. The US ends up with the same old cat-and-mouse game, bogged down by quasi-governmental, bureaucratic bs, that drags on for years, while the other party to the treaty secretly continues their advancement of arms proliferation. I’m not naive enough to think we don’t fudge on deals as well.
If there’s so much as a hiccup in Russia’s willingness to provide verifiable evidence that they’re complying with the terms of the agreement, the treaty should be null and void, period. Since we seemingly didn’t learn anything with regard to North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons, and ended up with the ineffective IAEA doing the Tom and Jerry routine yet again with Iran, I’ll remain skeptical that the US citizenry is being fed any better information than the Russian people.
The American people are tired of being demonized worldwide for their willingness to send their family members around the globe to protect people from muderous tyrants/regimes. They are also exhausted with these agreements which profess that the world is going to be a better place now that the treaty has been signed, yet the benefits never materialize, and it doesn’t ever end in our favor. I don’t think SALT I or SALT II served the US well, YMMV.
Finally, you still haven’t convinced me why it is inappropriate for a sitting senator, whose job it is to ratify treaties, should not be privy to negotiating documents. And what was the urgency in ratifying the treaty in a lame duck session of congress? And cut the crap about, “well he/she is a Bush appointee.” As if that has any bearing on who and what we choose to believe. Both, Democrats and Republicans have shown they can be equally incompetent, and are responsible for the cynicism displayed by the American people.
You may be who you claim to be—I don’t know. Anyone can claim to be whatever they want on the internet. You seem to imply that anyone here would have the time or inclination to stalk your anonymous expert sources. If you don’t understand people’s skepticism, that’s you problem. I apologize for my earlier snark. I only resort to that type of behavior when being told to basically, shut up your opinion is ignorant, without the slightest recognition that I’ve read up on an issue and hold a valid contrarian viewpoint.
Respectfully,
VFP
Chisum commented:
Isn’t this a timely article.
Obama under the Glare of WikiLeaks
This is the last paragraph of the article:
The analysis of WikiLeaks cables will continue, as will the assessment of damages and charges against Julian Assange on unrelated matters. Meanwhile, the public has had the benefit of a glaring, disinfecting light thrown on Obama’s duplicitous foreign policy. It is not surprising that public trust in government is at an all-time low. The WikiLeaks cables indicate that this distrust is apparently well-deserved. Thus, the Obama administration should be well afraid — if not of WikiLeaks, then of the reaction from a now-enlightened and informed public.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/obama_under_the_glare_of_wikil.html
Chisum commented:
Another timely article.
Lanny Davis Puts Dems to Shame
Guess who Lanny’s BFF is?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/lanny_davis_puts_dems_to_shame_20110104/?ln
Humiliations Galore! (The Princess Bride)
Proud American commented:
Thanks, VFP, appreciate the respect, and I understand your opinion, and there is some justification to it. There is no disputing that Russia/the Soviet Union has cheated on arms control agreements in the past.
It is merely my contention – and that of most of the people who monitor these things – that overall we are better off with the treaty and the cheating than without it.
For example, Reagan’s INF Treaty eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, destroying thousands of missiles. There are some reports (unconfirmed) that the Soviet Union cheated and retained some number of missiles. But compared to the alternative of thousands of missiles (pointed largely at Europe), the treaty regime is better.
mcc and others, time will tell whether the administration abandons missile defense. I’m pretty sure they won’t.
Anyway, I won’t have the luxury of commenting much today – I’m off to shake hands with a bunch of lying politicians as Congress opens its 112th session.
Cheers all, its been interesting.
Chisum commented:
Some quotes from U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Apolitical Military
“…I’m the principal advisor-military advisor to the president. And I took this job, obviously, under President Bush. And I knew it would be a time of transition. And I’m-very critical to me is that the military be the apolitical organization we are. And the politics become the politics. We serve the president, whoever that is. Men and women who serve know that and we serve President Obama every bit as much as we served President Bush.” (January 06, 2010, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, New York City, NY)
“The military must remain apolitical and must always observe, indeed hold sacred, the principle of civilian control of the military. We execute policy. We do not make it or advocate for it. And once the decision is made, we move out. That’s what our military does, and we do it well.” (July 01, 2009, Joint Force Quarterly)
“We get a chance to affect the decisions of our civilian leaders, but we do not make those decisions. And we do not involve ourselves in political debates.” (July 01, 2008, Joint Force Quarterly)
Henry Hawkins commented:
Is there anything more sad than someone who pretends to be an insider who actually knows and meets with the politicians involved with the events he advocates for? I mean, were we supposed to roll over and say, “Oh, well! You’re an insider! Why didn’t you say so!”
That would sure make things easy.
OK, from now on, no one is allowed to contest anything I say because I’m…. I’m a White house staffer, yeah, that’s the ticket…. on the staff of Valer… er…. David Axel… er…. President Obama! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
The point of departure is that Proud feels the treaty is good overall, despite the total screw up in the way it has been handled, not the least of which being the lying to its own side committed by the Obama administration. I believe process matters, and the Obama team’s abuse of the process has created a foreign policy debacle that hurts the country, weakens it even more. In foreign policy, Obama IS America, and he’s made of himself a laughingstock in the world. Any review of foreign policy of the last two years proves this.
As for the Russians, I am amazed that anyone trusts them, especially on matters of nuclear weapons. Remember Reagan? Star Wars? The USSR collapsing from inability to keep up financially? How it was strength and fortitude, not treaties that turned the tide?
Now is the time to pour it on, now back off. Expand our nuke capacity, especially our missile defense systems, till it doesn’t matter how many nukes Russia has because none of them could ever be delivered. Then you don’t have to worry about the Russians’ constant falsifications and game-playing about accountability with treaties. They become irrelevant, as would Russia as a global power.
Foreign policy is not about being nice, though that’s often a valuable tactic. The Russians have never done nice. They don’t do nice. Foreign policy is, has always been, and will always be about the exercise of power.
bg commented:
++
Henry Hawkins #114 (et al)
how stupid are we??
the US Congress keeps pulling the trigger of a
gun they claim they didn’t know was loaded..
bottom line:
irrespective of who or what the president
is, we cannot trust the US Congress..
==
bg commented:
++
hah, just heard Gibbs is departing paradise..
==
vote for pedro commented:
Folks, since Proud American has changed his tone, I’ll not attack him. What I find most troubling is his willingness to accept any cheating. We’ve been down this road before, and know where it leads. I find no value in an agreement where noncompliance is tolerable.
The following says it all:
If you can’t confirm whether the treaty is being adhered to, I’m completely baffled as to why any agreement is necessary, or how it is better? I see no logic in this conclusion because the premise is flawed.
Henry points to one of our biggest intelligence failures: advance recognition of the Soviet Union’s collapse. It illustrates that the CIA, Pentagon, et al., are entrenched in their beltway bubble, swilling cocktails, while congratulating each other on their most recent white/position papers.
I know I want my senator to request any and all materials necessary to make the best informed decision, regardless of the request’s appropriateness. Diplomacy is an inexact process, but if the language of an agreement doesn’t appear kosher, I find it difficult to move forward without additional inquiry/investigation.
The fact that the main issue from skeptics of the treaty, was the very one that the Russian Duma interpreted differently from the Obama administration, is problematic. I guess time will tell if there is any true mutual understanding between our countries.
Sluggo_f16 commented:
Proud Clown…you do realize ALL of those general would be fired for not supporting the CINC, right?
Henry Hawkins commented:
Ratifying a treaty before both parties have agreed 100% to its terms is eerily reminiscent of:
“We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”
When you consider we’re talking about nuclear weapons, it goes from eerie to frightening.
When you consider the diplomatic damage from botched, inept diplomacy, well… it’s pure Obama.
AuntieMadder commented:
Henry Hawkins:
“OK, from now on, no one is allowed to contest anything I say because I’m…. I’m a White house staffer, yeah, that’s the ticket…. on the staff of Valer… er…. David Axel… er…. President Obama! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
LOL!
bg commented:
++
ogee #110
believe you read it wrong..
Callipygian1 #103 is not an obat nor bot..
==
bg commented:
++
Sluggo_f16 #131
reminiscent of the Global Warming Swindle, only those in favor are counted..
==
Proud American commented:
Pedro, I’m willing to “tolerate” cheating in arms control in the same way I “tolerate” murder. There are laws against both, the system is designed to limit the damage cheating accomplishes. In the views of the wide majority of military, foreign policy, defense, and intelligence experts, the problems stemming from cheating have been less than the gains from the treaties, and this is why arms control treaties have passed by such large margins in the Senate in the past.
Henry, you can attack me all you want. I came to Washington DC, what I fondly call the “belly of the beast” because I wanted to help make my country safer and more secure. This is the center of power, for right or wrong, and that means working w/ folks you don’t respect, don’t like, but try to find some mutual grounds of making America safer. A majority of the Senate, based on the evidence presented to them, believes New START does so, and I’m happy about that. I understand you don’t agree and that I can’t convince you, but that’s the way of the world.
Proud American commented:
Oh, I should add, the only time I ever worked in the federal government was as a “fellow” (read ‘glorified intern’) at the Department of State during the Bush the elder administration; otherwise I’ve always been on the outside, working for non-profit organizations.
Proud American commented:
One more thing, Henry, you keep talking about the “diplomatic damage”? Can you specify any? As I mentioned earlier, every country on the globe supports New START except Iran.
For example, you might have noticed the NATO summit in Lisbon in November, where a number of former Soviet vassal states, now NATO members or associates, spoke clearly in favor of the treaty.
Is the dispute over the meaning of the preamble unfortunate? Yes, but nations recognize, as Pedro pointed out, that Russian politicians play to their domestic audience the same way American ones do.
BurkeanDrama commented:
But don’t some of these agreements lead to complacency and bureaucratic incompetence? For example, take North Korea. They basically started developing their nuclear capabilities immediately after signing the document, even with IAEA oversight. Now they extort food and energy by the mere appearance of instability from their leader. IOW, nonproliferation agreements are great in theory, yet their results are somewhat suspect. I don’t see any discernable punishment for noncompliance, unless you consider abject poverty and dispair for the masses living under tyrannical oppression. What price has Kim Jong-Il paid?
Proud American commented:
Burke, Complacency and bureaucratic incompetence are almost inevitable, but the question is, are we better off overall with the agreement. For North Korea, from 1994 until they threw the inspectors out, we locked down North Korea’s plutonium program. We now know they also started a uranium program as well, so now we have to work on that too. But the alternative was no program, and North Korea moving ahead with making even more nuclear bombs. No solution is perfect, but you do what you can.
vote for pedro commented:
Proud American, I have a couple of sincere questions that I hope you won’t take as purposefully sarcastic.
1) You avoided my point regarding me wanting my senator, whose job it is to ratify treaties, access to any documentation he/she finds necessary to make a more informed decision. I fail to see why an elected member of congress should be denied the ability to peruse any negotiating records, even if they’re irrelevent. If they’re inconsequential, where’s the harm? Isn’t that the best way to get beyond the political bickering.
2)What’s your purpose for returning to a blog that generates less than 50 comments a post? I’m serious. We’re mostly portrayed as a bunch of reichwing cranks who are sustained by Jim Hoft’s supposed daily lies. I find it curious that someone involved in the workings of Washington would bother responding to us wingnuts. BTW, I do appreciate your input, and the respectful tone we were eventually able to establish. Thanks!
Proud American commented:
Pedro, I did address your point in comment #113 – I make the case for why senators should not be provided the record, but I agree that it is the one point where I feel the case is not clear cut.
I posted here because this piece was getting some heavy Tweet coverage, and then it got fun.
Here’s the latest from the Russians – ratification soon, and an explanation that the two sides disagree, but doesn’t affect the treaty itself:
Kosachyov: Russia ready to ratify US arms treaty
(AP) – 3 days ago
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia will likely ratify an arms treaty with the United States by the end of the month, a key member of the country’s parliament said Friday.
Russia’s lower house of parliament gave preliminary approval to the treaty before the New Year’s holidays, but decided to delay a final vote to give the Russian side time to study the resolution passed by the U.S. Senate when it ratified the pact last month.
Konstantin Kosachyov, who heads the State Duma’s foreign affairs committee, said Russia is now ready to ratify the New START treaty and has written its own amendments to the ratification document “to balance the work that has been done by the Senate.”
He said the State Duma’s legislation would state how Russia’s interpretation of the treaty differed from that of the Senate, but he stressed that the text of the treaty itself would remain unchanged.
“We don’t accept certain interpretations from the American side, they will definitely not accept certain interpretations from the Russian side and then we will have to live with the existing treaty,” Kosachyov said in an interview with AP Television News.