In the Arena

Start Stopped

Today, we have further confirmation of the Republican Party’s slide toward policy kookery: Senator John Kyl is “delaying” consideration of the Start treaty that the Obama Administration has negotiated with Russia. This treaty is supported–unanimously–by the U.S. military and widely by prominent Republicans (like former Secretary of State George Schultz). Kyl is playing with fire here.

Over the past year, the Russians have been extremely helpful in assorted foreign policy realms. They’ve cooperated on easing transport of U.S. soldiers and equipment into Afghanistan. They’ve made a major sacrifice–a $13 billion hit in arms sales–by joining the UN sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, the Start treaty helps reduce, secure and monitor the Russian nuclear stockpile. Its opponents tend to be half-baked leftovers from the Bush Administration, like John Bolton, who oppose negotiations and treaties under almost any circumstances.

If, in response to Kyl’s flagrant irresponsibility, the Russians choose to backslide in any of these areas, it could have dire effects. Russia’s role in the Iran sanctions is particularly important. Even the domestic political benefits of his position are dubious: most Americans want to see cooperation overseas and an unrelenting focus on our economic problems at home. (Most Americans have little sympathy for the neoconservative warmongering of people like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer–the “bomber boys” who are on record in favor of war with Iran.)

Kyl’s foolishness is compounded today by statements made by Roger Ailes, the Fox News czar, about the President, whom he considers “a left-wing socialist”:

He just has a different belief system than most Americans.

This is nauseating twaddle. I would suspect that Obama’s belief system is much closer to that of most Americans than the paranoia and lies peddled by Ailes’s mouthpieces like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, who represent–on a good day–the views of maybe 30% of all Americans. For more on this topic, please read Tom Friedman’s excellent column today about the Ailes-promoted disinformation that the President’s trip to India would cost $200 million per day.

If Ailes actually does consider a moderate Democrat like Obama a “socialist”–and I don’t for a moment believe that this post-modern Barnum does–the question arises: What does that make him? I’d suspect that Roger would probably have been fairly comfortable as Francisco Franco’s Minister of Propaganda–or perhaps, given his baloney quotient, a member of the Catalonian anarchists. But nothing respectable, to be sure. Nothing American.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Isn’t he Australian?

  • rdw56

    Joe,

    Serious question, if this deal is all sweetness and light why do it in a lame duck session? Sounds like a slam dunk. He’s had huge majorities in Congress and he waits until the Lame Duck session. Gotta be honest, something smells rotten in swampland.

  • rdw56

    Also note you have been increasingly irritable and condescending as Obama’s star has dimmed. Kyle strikes me as a very sober and competent guy. That’s pretty harsh rhetoric, even for the far left. As far as Obama the election strongly suggest his belief system is very different than most Americans. This is the worst result for Democrats since at least 1938 and would have been much worse if the Tea Party didn’t mangle the Senate races.

  • stuartzechman

    There’s nothing strange or corrupt about legislation passed in lame duck session at all.
    .
    If you argue that these sessions are somehow undemocratic, you’re really making the case that the previous electorate –different people who showed up for different reasons– are only allowed a 22 month term, instead of the full 24 months.
    .
    Is that how you think things should be run?
    .
    Do you disagree that the previous voters are entitled to the full 2 years promised them when they cast their ballots, or does the new crowd get to shorten those terms to 22 months?
    .
    Either you’re arguing for a shorter Congressional term than promised, or your tedious, repetitive “this has the whiff of corruption” is an obvious partisan talking point.
    .
    At some point in the repetition, normal folks have to ask themselves “Is this guy paid to hammer talking points, or is he a volunteer?

  • hippooath

    Serious question.
    .
    Are you serious?

  • filmnoia

    Joe -

    Using terms like “irresponsibility” and “foolishness” to categorize Kyl are tired liberal euphemisms akin to what we hear from the feckless Dems in Congress. Please refer to Kyl in terms like “un-American” and “traitorous”. Let’s call a spade a spade. You know , the way the GOP would if it were a GOP Prez and a Dem Senator.

  • charlieromeobravo

    I’m not sure what the issue here is. Everyone knows that when Republicans play politics with our national security it’s because only they really know and understand what’s good for America. If the parties were flipped and this were a Democrat stalling this treaty they’d be endangering the US and giving comfort to our enemies.
    .
    Is this what the next two years are going to be? Obama wants it so Republicans block it because any accomplishment for Obama is automatically a bad thing for them?

  • rdw56

    I think passing major legislation during a lame duck session is sleezy. The reason is the status of so many congressmen have changed. In this year about 60 have been asked by their constituants to leave due to poor performance. They clearly don’t want them passing legislation. Way back when the gap between the election and the start of the new session was needed because of the time needed to verify elections and travel. It wasn’t expected a lame duck group would even meet.

    Obama has all the time in the world to submit this thing. He choose not too. Shame on him. When he was in the Senate he didn’t hesitate to block legislation he didn’t like. What goes around comes around.

  • hippooath

    There was a time when media and the political body shamed similar behavior. Now there’s absolutely no personal cost associated to it unless they’re caught getting blow jobs under the pulpet by transsexual midgets. And even then it depends on if they’re democrats or Republicans..

  • shepherdwong

    Amen.

  • rdw56

    No, Kyle never liked the deal and conservatives do not trust liberals or the Russians. To be honest I forget why the conservatives don’t like it but I know Joe and you people are being hyper-patisan. Joe might like the deal but he’s acting as if there’s no possible reason for anyone to be opposed to it. That’s nonsense.

    Joe lost any pretense to objectivity a very long time ago. Time doesn’t even pretend. But he’s becoming increasingly partisan and bitchy. This is why Newsweek sold for $1 and just merged with a blog that didn’t exist 3 years ago.

  • allthingsinaname

    I think the next two years are going to be like the last two years. I do not see Obama driving the agenda and fighting for it.
    .
    End of story

  • rdw56

    You must be thinking of Johnny Kerry, you know the guy who served in Vietnam, came home as a war hero and then began calling his fellow soldiers war criminals based entirely on hearsay?

    I don’t think he was a traitor. A scumbag yes. Dumb, that too.

  • stuartzechman

    Joe Klein has nothing to do whatsoever with “the far left.”
    .
    Movement liberals aren’t even “the far left,” i.e. the International ANSWR crowd, much less him.
    .
    Joe isn’t “left” at all, he’s “radical middle.”
    .
    Go ahead and Google “Joe Klein + stalking the radical middle” (without the quotes), and see what I’m talking about.
    .
    He’s a centrist, not a movement liberal.
    .
    He also hates populism, which is why he disdains movement conservatives as much as he does us, the actual left (not “far”, just left). You know, us –the non-establishment people who call themselves “liberals”?
    .
    When will you guys stop dishonestly calling everyone who isn’t a rightist like you “the far left?”

  • hippooath

    “I think passing major legislation during a lame duck session is sleezy. The reason is the status of so many congressmen have changed. In this year about 60 have been asked by their constituants to leave due to poor performance. They clearly don’t want them passing legislation. Way back when the gap between the election and the start of the new session was needed because of the time needed to verify elections and travel. It wasn’t expected a lame duck group would even meet.
    .
    Obama has all the time in the world to submit this thing. He choose not too. Shame on him. When he was in the Senate he didn’t hesitate to block legislation he didn’t like. What goes around comes around.”
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START
    .
    “On Tuesday, September 16, 2010 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 14-4 in favour of ratifying New START. The measure had support from three Senate Republicans; Richard Lugar of Indiana, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.”
    .
    This has been in the works for years. It’s not like Obama suddenly said – yeah lets do this now ’cause it’s this secret plan to destroy the America
    .
    So where did he have all the time in the world to submit ‘this thing’?

  • hippooath

    “I don’t think he was a traitor. A scumbag yes. Dumb, that too.”
    .
    Kyl sure is a dumb@ss

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    100% true, filmnoia. The Republican Party is a group of people without policy views, animated solely by a “manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief.” That every single person with any degree of policy knowledge thinks this treaty should be confirmed post haste is simply not relevant to the fear & resentment party.
    -
    All the cliches you used to hear about the left apply doubly to today’s right.
    -
    People on the left felt negative emotions when they thought about corporations operating for profit… so they called it “fascism.” The left was held to revere “authenticity” as a higher value than merit, achievement, or logical argument– people were divided into groups, and their deservingness was apportioned accordingly.
    -
    Today’s right calls the Heritage/Bob Dole health insurance policy “socialism.” They oppose Start even though roughly everyone who has ever held a position of responsibility in US national security supports it, simply because in lieu of a moral compass, they oppose whatever the president supports. They revere Sarah Palin because of their emotional attachment to a white woman who hails from “real America,” the “pro-America areas of this great nation,” not because she has ever said or done anything of note in her abandoned half-term as a small-state governor.
    -
    The difference is, the caricature lefties managed to take control of a couple lit departments for a few months in the 1980s. The caricature righties are every single elected Republican official and every single member of the GOP rank and file. And the “he said/she said” approach to the news in the MSM is objectively pro-insanity.

  • shepherdwong

    You must be thinking of Johnny Kerry, you know the guy who served in Vietnam, came home as a war hero and then began calling his fellow soldiers war criminals based entirely on hearsay?
    .
    John Kerry earned a Silver Star fighting under the criminal “rules of engagement” he later decried, so it was anything but “hearsay”. Pretty stark contrast to the deserter you chose for your presidential candidate. You know, the one who went on to lie the country into a disastrous war and become an infamous war criminal for torturing innocent captives for false confessions.
    .
    http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
    .
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/

  • kevin

    What theme is he going to campaign for re-election on next time? “Jon Kyl: Country Last”?

  • kevin

    To be honest I forget why the conservatives don’t like it but I know Joe and you people are being hyper-patisan.
    .
    Classic. You know nothing about the treaty, but you know conservatives dislike it, and that’s good enough for you. Your tribe has spoken, and who are you to disagree?
    .
    Maybe you can get them to explain to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff why this is a bad treaty. Because he thinks it’s pretty important:

    “I believe — and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes — that this treaty is essential to our future security. I believe it enhances and ensures that security. And I hope the Senate will ratify it quickly.”

    http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/nuclear-treaty-blow-comes-has-political-fallout-too-20101116

  • jsfox

    So since you believe passing legislation during the lame duck is sleazy. I can assume you would agree that the Bush Tax cuts sun setting should not be taken up and they should just be allowed to expire. Oh and the military appropriations bill should not be taken up and funding should stop.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    The links in my comment above aren’t showing up. At these links, you’ll find support for this specific treaty from James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford and the Secretary of Energy for President Carter; Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander; Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to President Nixon and Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford; Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush; Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly (“The New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty’s constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas”); George Shultz, former Secretary of State; William Perry, former Secretary of Defense; Senator Sam Nunn, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative; Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and leader on nuclear reductions with Russia; Richard Burt, former ambassador to Germany and lead negotiator for the original accord under President George H.W. Bush; Cardinal Francis E. George of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
    -
    http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1636
    -
    http://www.frumforum.com/making-the-case-for-new-start
    -
    None of this matters to fear & resentment party luminaries like John Kyl. You can’t reason a man out of something he didn’t reason himself into. The Republican Party is the Southern Strategy. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • lilaland

    I don’t think Obama is going to bottom out on the Nuclear treaty. It is something we will see get done. I think the Nuclear treaty is a real passion for Obama. Nuclear proliferation is a huge threat to the world and Obama has been involved with the clean up from his first days in the senate. Obama will work with smart informed republicans like Dick Lugar. The Nunn-Lugar scorecard is something Obama is very much a student of.
    In the end, I think the Russian treaty is something Obama puts deep personal conviction into.
    It is one of the few issues where I get a very strong impression of who he is as a person.

  • michaelfury

    Does Ailes know about Geraldo’s Saturday guests? After all, Beck says these people are dangerous extremists.

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/critical-mass/

  • http://poffdaddy.wordpress.com Quadsfather

    The current administration, their peanut gallery/elitists apologists and assorted surrender weasels must get used to the new reality that they will be opposed, held to extreme scrutiny and defeated on the merits of their weak and misguided policy efforts on all fronts. Indeed, this will become louder and steeper the closer 2012 comes. Thicken your skin or just bring Kleenex ’cause the throat ramming days are over!

  • http://jrgsmth32.wordpress.com jrgsmth32

    notice how you don’t address any of the issues and view this as a game.

    it’s what the republican party is. people who play games. they have no serious policies. no serious ways to deal with big issues. all they care about is power.

    only republicans can get away with opposing a treaty that is backed by basically every single national security figure who has held a position of responsibility, the secretary of defense, secretary of state, joint chiefs, and the potus.

    what a bunch of a-holes.

  • kathy

    Kyl is odious

  • artraveler

    The current START treaty expired. Without the treaty in place, US inspections on Soviet soil and among those nukes that are sort of not under any major control now, ends. The Russians can do anything they please and there is nothing to do but watch from 235,000 miles in space.

    I missed Kyl’s explanation of how not being able to monitor the Russians on the ground is good for national security.

    Kyl just wants more “off the books” money to update nuclear warheads. If he wants them, then budget them without an earmark and give up something else in the Defense budget but don’t give away US security. Maybe the president needs to get those US security forces off the AZ border so he can get them watching Russia from space since the on-the-ground people won’t be able to do it.

  • grape_crush

    …defeated on the merits of their weak and misguided policy efforts on all fronts.
    .
    “We had to destroy the village in order to save the election.”
    .
    It’s not about fact or what history has taught us or reason or sanity or compassion for you, is it? It’s only about doing whatever it takes to get a win for your team.
    .
    Meanwhile, your leadership is lying to you and using your frenetic passion as an excuse to rob everyone (including you) blind. You’re a tool to be used and then thrown away when you’ve served your purpose.
    .
    How does that make you feel?

  • grape_crush

    If, in response to Kyl’s flagrant irresponsibility…
    .
    Kyl knows exactly what he is doing. He’s waiting for Obama to blink, which will allow him to extort even more concessions. His concerns were already addressed, and now he’s just holding our national interest hostage for ransom, another ‘Kyl Kickback’

  • rdw56

    How about September 17, 2010?

  • rdw56

    I would love for all of the Bush tax cuts to expire. That’ll send the Dow down 800 points and piss everyone off.

    But in fact these tax cuts do not represent major legislation in that they are extending the current levels intact. Nothing will change. If I am not mistaken Evan Bayh and at least two other Senators have already said they won’t consider major legislation during this session honoring long established standards.

  • rdw56

    He’s not even close to centrist. How do you define left?

    He is for more tax increases, more spending, more govt control of everything, more gun control, the campaign finance reform already rules illegal, would pass the fairness act, take Fox off the air and cut defense spending in half.

    That’s all far left. What part of Joe is Centrist?

  • rdw56

    Sorry lad, the commercial that did the most damage was his own testimony before Congress where he said something about cutting ears off and something about Jengis Kahn. That was where he accused his fellow troops of war crimes and when asked why he didn’t stop it he admitted he wasn’t there and never actually saw it, it was hearsay.

    Do you really want to beat this dead horse? You nominated a stiff. Get over it.

  • rdw56

    Maybe you can get them to explain to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff why this is a bad treaty. Because he thinks it’s pretty important:

    ****************************************

    When did we assign legislative responsibilities to generals? Do you really want them calling the shots? Fine with me. I’d much rather have Petraeus decide Afghanistan.

  • rdw56

    Then he will cut a deal. It’s called politics. You say you want them to work together right? Well that’s how it happens.

  • hippooath

    “The current administration, their peanut gallery/elitists apologists and assorted surrender weasels must get used to the new reality that they will be opposed, held to extreme scrutiny and defeated on the merits of their weak and misguided policy efforts on all fronts. Indeed, this will become louder and steeper the closer 2012 comes. Thicken your skin or just bring Kleenex ’cause the throat ramming days are over!”
    .
    Please explain this ‘misguided’ policy in detail or is this macho talk for ‘I don’t know what we’re talking about but if Obama is involved it gotsa go’.
    .
    Policy according to thugs.

  • http://tragedydeferred.wordpress.com logicforbipeds

    Idiots. Good God.

  • hippooath

    “I would love for all of the Bush tax cuts to expire. That’ll send the Dow down 800 points and piss everyone off.
    .
    But in fact these tax cuts do not represent major legislation in that they are extending the current levels intact. Nothing will change.”
    .
    At least you’re consistently tribal. You don’t know the subject at hand but if you’re hard stand is compared to any policy you support (GOP) it’s suddenly not apples to apples anymore. It’s special.
    .
    Please – let Dow eat cake, cause I’m sure the Dow will fall through the floor if rich people have to pay 2 percent more in income tax over the 250k they already pay less for. Especially since the 15 percent they pay on fooling around with stocks won’t change.
    .
    So when will your inner geek actually surface? Between you being a economy geek and all and pretend doctor earl I can see why you guys hate people who know stuff in the first place.

  • hippooath

    “When did we assign legislative responsibilities to generals? Do you really want them calling the shots? Fine with me. I’d much rather have Petraeus decide Afghanistan.”
    .
    So rdw – should we listen to our military or not? You think in Afghanistan yes, but otherwise no because your tribe ‘don’t like it’.

  • stuartzechman

    Great questions, albeit incorrectly framed.
    .
    Let me get back to you on this later this afternoon, and I’ll show you the difference between an establishment centrist like Joe Klein, and movement liberals.

  • bmullan

    Anyone worried about trafficking stolen nuclear materials to terrorists ought to be very alarmed at any delay in getting this treaty approved.

    Russia has dozens of storage sites where security is by no means the same as U.S. facilities. Russia also has a reputation for bribery and a well connected black market.

    Do YOU really want to put politics in the middle of trying to get better protection of those dangerous materials?

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    What’s nuclear arms in the hands of terrorists compared to a 5-seat swing to the GOP in the next Congressional election? It doesn’t matter when your only beliefs are tribalism.

  • rdw56

    If the need is so dire why didn’t Obama get this done last year?

    You are trying to manufacture urgency. It’s not going well.

  • rdw56

    Yes, we listen. You cited the generals support as if that’s all that mattered. This specific blog is pointless because there’s no point. Joe won’t name Kyl’s reason. He just wants to rant.

  • rdw56

    Do me a favor. Describe conservatives too. Just so I know how nuts you think I am.

  • 53_3

    There are lots of pitfalls for the GOP to step in, and this is one of them.
    .
    There are a few polls that indicate that the GOP is expected to do something besides pontificate on how Americans have “endorsed” their ideology.
    .
    Stay tuned…

  • 53_3

    …surrender weasels…
    .
    And I thought that the Bush years were over.
    .
    Silly me…

  • shepherdwong

    …the commercial that did the most damage was his own testimony before Congress where he said something about cutting ears off and something about Jengis Kahn.
    .
    The commercials that did the damage were Karl Rove directed smears where a bunch of traitorous Republicans lied about the actions of a decorated war hero, even though they “[weren't] there and never actually saw it.”

  • apr2563

    This is the current rw talking point that rdw56 loves so much.
    Obama should just go on vacation until January according to Gingrich.
    .
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/16/gingrich-to-obama-take-a-long-vacation/
    .
    Fox wants no legislation until January. Bogus poll shows us this.
    .
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/12/fox-news-poll-wrong-pass-legislation-lame-duck-session/

  • rdw56

    RE: New START Treaty
    J. E. Dyer – 11.17.2010 – 2:38 PM

    With the perfervid push underway to get the New START treaty on the lame-duck Senate’s schedule, I would add this to the discussion between Jennifer, John, and Max: it’s not clear why the Obama administration is pushing for quick action. The Senate deliberations to date make it inadvisable.

    The uneasy accord represented by the April 8 treaty signing is already falling apart. For the Russians, the opt-out clause in the preamble was of paramount concern. That clause makes their adherence to the treaty contingent on Russian approval of America’s plans for missile defense. The treaty stipulates that neither side will convert old ICBM silos for use in a strategic missile-defense system, but the preamble makes it clear that, for Moscow, U.S. missile-defense programs will actually be an open-ended source of conditions on the arms accord.

    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, however, in the official “understandings” included with its resolution on the treaty, has directly contradicted that Russian expectation. The three “understandings” were proposed by Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican, and adopted by the full committee in September. One of them articulates the committee’s belief that the treaty imposes no limitations on U.S. missile defenses other than the prohibition on the use of ICBM silos. The committee also “understands” that the treaty places no limits on American use of strategic weapon systems in a conventional (non-nuclear) role, and that if Russia resurrects its rail-mobile ICBM system, the treaty will apply to that as well as to the systems explicitly addressed in it.

    Russia finds these understandings unpalatable. In late October, an Interfax report quoted the leader of the Duma’s international-affairs committee as planning “to suggest to committee members that they reconsider the ratification of the Russian-U.S. New START Treaty in view of new circumstances.” The new circumstances he cited were the three understandings adopted by the U.S. Senate committee.

    Senator Lugar was an early advocate of the treaty; he didn’t propose these understandings with the intention of torpedoing it. Realistically, the treaty won’t be ratified without the understandings. The concerns reflected in them are predominant among Republicans, but a number of Democrats (and Independent Joe Lieberman) share them as well.

    It’s not clear what Russia will do if New START is ratified with the U.S. Senate understandings. Medvedev and Putin might well consider it to their advantage to let a lengthy rejection process unfold in the Duma, rather than repudiating the Senate understandings immediately. But Obama’s abysmal record of obtaining difficult agreements makes it a virtual certainty that the treaty can’t be rescued for the purpose of actual arms limitation. The administration’s best option now is probably to accept the delay in Senate consideration and look for a way to revisit the treaty itself with Russia.

  • rdw56

    Actually this doesn’t make anyone list of top 20 concerns. I follow politics and have no idea what the problem is here aside from what I posted below. This is fr too deep into the weeds and few Americans have any idea of the relevant issues. Apparently that includes Joe. Because he seems to think it’s just Kyl being a prick.

  • apr2563


    .
    A repeat of the light show just for you rdw. Duck and cover!

  • rdw56

    Seems like the Ruskies are still terrified of star wars and this is a back door attempt to ban it. Not a surprise Obama would give then something for nothing. Not with Lugar. This will get filibustered and Lieberman will be one of them.

    That last paragraph sums it up. Obama has an abysmal record on diplomacy.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    this is a back door attempt to ban it.
    -
    That is a lie.
    -

    New START does not limit U.S. missile defense systems or in any way diminish our ability to protect and defend our allies. Our leading uniformed officers have repeatedly stressed that the New START agreement does not constrain the missile defense plans of the United States. In fact, the U.S. now has the freedom to conduct certain tests that were limited by the previous START agreement.

    Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly: “The New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty’s constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas.” [General O'Reilly, 6/16/10]

    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: ‘The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses.” [Sec. Gates, 6/17/10]

    Commander of U.S. Strategic Command General Chilton: “As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans, operations, and advocacy, this treaty does not constrain any current missile defense plans.” [Kevin Chilton, 6/16/10]

    Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Ash Carter: “Missile defenses have become a topic of some discussion in the context of the Senate’s consideration of the New START Treaty with Russia. The fact is that the treaty does not constrain the U.S. from testing, developing and deploying missile defenses. Nor does it prevent us from improving or expanding them. Nor does it raise the costs of doing so. We have made clear to our Russian counterparts that missile defense cooperation between us is in our mutual interest, and is not inconsistent with the need to deploy and improve our missile defense capabilities as threats arise.” [Flournoy and Carter via WSJ, 6/17/10]

    In addition, in the future, the United States may expand it missile defense system by incorporating additional information from Russian radars that would help strengthen U.S. capabilities.

    -
    http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1636

  • rdw56

    That’s pretty cool. Do you know who was testing in Africa? I assume the French? I thought they were in the South Pacific.

  • rdw56

    Sounds good and I hope you are correct but Lugar apparently differs with you. He put changes through.
    I have no interest in debating the merits of the treaty. It’s a problem from a different age. My point is I don’t want him slipping things thru a lame duck session.

  • pelhamite1

    There is no reason to believe that the Republicans are going to become more responsible in the next sesssion. If Kyl is willing to play politics with this most important of international agreements now, you have to believe that he, McConnell and the rest are going to be even more self serving in the next session. The best that the President can do is to move the agreement forward to a vote, get everyone on record and see how people respond to the recognition that our most important foreign policy initiatives – the isolation of Iran, the continuing effort to keep tabs on Russia’s nuclear arsenal – are being imperiled by Republican posturing.

  • http://abstractcommentator.wordpress.com abstractcommentator

    I see Kyl’s obstructionism as par for the course. The Republican’s greatest concern is with derailing Obama’s presidency. In the past, they have pretty much said as much. They can probably even manage to deceive themselves into believing that it is in the country’s best interest – after all, President Obama is supposedly to the left of Chairman Mao. So the mendacity of Fox News propaganda is all of a piece with Republican obstructionism.

    But, the Republicans have paid no price for this because Obama has not forced them to pay a price. This is the biggest complaint coming from the progressives. Obama has to fight for what he believes in, and in the process he has to fight against his opponents. I know he is temperamentally disinclined to do this but he must realize by now that he can’t reach across the aisle and hope for the Republicans to be reasonable or to do what is in the best interests of their country. Obama has to speak the truth loudly and forcefully, loud enough to be heard over the Fox News noise machine.
    .

  • rdw56

    It’s not a critical treaty. It would have been done a year ago otherwise.

  • rdw56

    Get over yourself. It’s politics 101. Democrats did the same thing in 2006.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Borrowing from modern day right-wing logic, where false analogy seems to have nosed ahead of ad hominem and straw man arguments for the moment, I’d have to agree with JK, Roger Ailes is a fascist and Kle’s actions can only be described as treasonous. He is willing to put the safety of the whole nation at risk to satisfy his ideological rage. Besides, I don’t understand why the Republicans are so anxious to take power. They have already taught us that absolutely everything is subject to filibuster and can be killed in the Senate.

  • shepherdwong

    I don’t understand why the Republicans are so anxious to take power.
    .
    Because it’s so very important to their Teatard base. As should be obvious by now, those people neither understand nor care about practically any policy issue but they do care very deeply about defeating (or being defeated by) their perceived enemies: liberal Democrats. Since the policies changed so little from Bush to Obama, the only explanation for why they’re so damned angry is the beating they took from Democrats in 2006 and 2008. The fact that millions of them stopped calling themselves Republicans afterward shows how much their self-worth is dependent upon the success of thier political tribe. If the authority figures of right-wing authoritarian followers fail to utterly vanquish their foes, they won’t be authority figures for very long.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Maybe it would be good if they took power? Most of the red neck liberals are gone now so it shouldn’t be difficult to find members willing to oppose everything they propose, then we can attack them for not getting anything done.

  • ericnwinter

    Sure, Republicans and Fox are pure evil – but – who doesn’t already know this?

    Anyone getting tired of typing the words “Republicans and Fox are pure evil”? Fox has the money, and Corporate America owns the Republican party, so what’s a non-evil person to do?

    I guess just sit here and type “Republicans and Fox News are pure evil” and wait for Obama to grow a pair. (Okay – let’s not get carried away!)

  • stuartzechman

    Still working hard, may not get to reply as needed, so I’ll at least put up this:
    .
    link to Joe Klein is not your friend

  • apr2563

    The French tested in the Pacific and Africa. You know they still had colonies.
    Unlike Obama they weren’t, at that time, anti-colonialists.
    .
    Did you get my point rdw? I lived through that entire era. The less nukes we have the better off we are. After all, how many do you need to destroy the world. Evidently Kyl wants to make sure we kill the optimal number.

  • http://poffdaddy.wordpress.com Quadsfather

    Wow, so much Kleenex so very quickly! All from a bully pundit and his devotees that had it all and have to admit that touchy feely stuff only works at airports for the TSA. Do whine and rumble but keep em handy y’all and toughen your hides. This will not be as easy as the last two years. You have opposition that has opposition if they do not deliver. Enjoy….

  • http://poffdaddy.wordpress.com Quadsfather

    Wow, so much Kleenex so very quickly! All from a bully pundit and his devotees that had it all and have to admit that touchy feely stuff only works at airports for the TSA. Do whine and rumble but keep em handy y’all and toughen your hides. This will not be as easy as the last two years. You have opposition that has opposition if they do not deliver. Enjoy….

    Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/17/start-stopped/#ixzz15acVatHx

  • rdw56

    I lived thru it too and it’s great wishful thinking but that’s all it is. Obviously this bill is not limited to just reducing stockpiles but also ending star wars. You kill yourselves making these tortured claims of GOP malfeasance. A child can figure out Kyl has some level of authentic objection and as soon as it’s clear Joe won’t specify it Joe is hiding something.

    For what it’s worth Reagan was even more childlike than Obama in thinking he could rid the world of nukes. His edge over Obama was he didn’t trust a word they said.

  • stuartzechman

    Just popping in to say that you’re correct: establishment centrists are statists.
    .
    The thing is, they’re also corporatists.
    .
    They’re the worst of both worlds, they’re statists and corporatists.
    .
    Take it from me, it’s not the left’s idea to have the IRS force people to give their money to state-based private health insurance monopolies.
    .
    See how that’s the worst of both worlds?
    .
    Centrists like Joe are for government bureaucracy, alright, just as long as the state confines itself to the role of helpful partner to big finance and industry.
    .
    The irony here is that Joe –and the Obama Administration, for whom he usually shills– hates us movement liberals, the people who are anti-TARP, anti-ACA, and pro-Bill of Rights (yes, 2nd Amendment included, at least for people like myself, Markos Moulitsas and Glenn Greenwald) more than he hates you.
    .
    They’d rather “govern” under your heel than share power with us, basically.
    .
    As far as what defines conservatism, I believe that’s a complex philosophy filled with significant nuance and subtlety, so I’m not sure I have the time right now to fully discuss it.
    .
    I will say that, in the simplest terms, conservatism is the philosophy that proposes that we, as humans, have learned some very valuable things over the last two thousand years, and that progress on the one hand isn’t worth what we lose in creative destruction on the other, at least most of the time.
    .
    Basically, conservatives believe that there are areas of key cultural knowledge lost as change happens. Those important, defining characteristics are what they seek to conserve at the expense of untested progress filled with the potential for adverse unintended consequences.
    .
    So that’s a terribly simple definition of conservatism, and, although it doesn’t adequately represent the full complexity of movement, popular conservatism, it bears even less resemblance to neo-conservatism and the modern, establishment Republican Party.
    .
    I realize that, along with many of the people who started –although not the people who are coopting, corrupting and ending– the Tea Party movement.

  • rwbbinla

    ” Intelligent discourse is Futile” The Tea Party Borg have spoken.

  • herby002

    Source?
    I like sources of quotes when liars post quotes.
    Please help.

  • herby002

    Thanks, apr. I was looking for this on YouTube.

    rdw, you said -
    “lived thru it too and it’s great wishful thinking but that’s all it is. Obviously this bill is not limited to just reducing stockpiles but also ending star wars. You kill yourselves making these tortured claims of GOP malfeasance. A child can figure out Kyl has some level of authentic objection and as soon as it’s clear Joe won’t specify it Joe is hiding something.

    For what it’s worth Reagan was even more childlike than Obama in thinking he could rid the world of nukes. His edge over Obama was he didn’t trust a word they said.”

    - What’s your documentation that this treaty would kill star wars?
    - What is Kyl’s “authentic objection”? How do you know he has one, other than wanting to stop whatever Obama (and thousands of other experts) want to do in the nation’s interest?
    - Why would Joe know what Kyl’s (secret) “authentic objection” is, and why isn’t Kyl telling what his “real” objection is?
    - Why would Joe keep Kyl’s secret secret? You never heard of journalistic scoops? They live for them.
    - Glad you think Reagan was “childlike”. Like many of your analyses, it’s wrong: he was, at the end, senile.
    - Reagan signed the weapons ban treaty. This is a continuation of it. Reagan’s treaty had a mutual inspection component that illustrated his statement, “Trust, but verify!” This treaty does the same. Kyl’s (and your) refusal to ratify this treaty takes the “trust” and “verify” parts off the table, since there is no limit on Russian weapons anymore, and no way to see what they are/are not doing.
    - Does this make you (secretly) happy?

  • herby002

    Derek,

    Way back in the early days of Fox News, Ailes said its mission is “We are the loyal opposition”.
    The REAL news organizations had as their mission, report the news.

    Roger should be honest (if that’s possible) and revise the Fox News Mission Statement: “We are the [deleted] opposition”*.

    *Sponsored by xCorporation, yCorporation, zCorporation, and co-sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce.

  • herby002

    rwbbinla ,

    To quote Captain Picard, “We will not be assimilated!”

  • rdw56

    Very nice line. I’d like to see that catch on. And you will be assimilated. You have to give them their chops. They are brilliantly positioned. They will essentially control the GOP. They just elected 60 some house members for one reason above all others and if they falter just a little bit they’ll be canned and they know it. There are almost two dozen Senators coming up for re-election in 2012 who right now have one concern that ranks above all others and that’s tea party opposition to their candidacy. If they are GOP they will have a nasty primary fight they’ll probably lose. If they are Democrat in a red state they will have a very well funded opponent with a huge get out the vote army.

    It’s pretty cool when you think about it. Jim Webb saw VA elect a very conservative governor because he was good on fiscal policy. He just saw a devastating election for his party due to the tea party and understands it’s only going to motivate them more. He’s going to be one of their top targets. Jim Webb knows right now with certainty he even thinks about pissing on them they will be picketing his offices the next two years and working 24/7 to fire him. He’s going to have to ask himself if he wants to stay in the job and if he does he has no choice but to meet their demands.

  • http://poffdaddy.wordpress.com Quadsfather

    Spot on! Non-institutional accountability to the people in place and growing stronger if situations are not addressed. Tea parties are a mostly not social issue force that will be the 8000lb gorilla for some time to come.
    Just look at the Rangel mockery. Oh yea wow we must fine him as he snubs his nose at the lot of them as they fall over themselves to kiss his turned posterior. Pols cannot police themselves while they hold power. Power must be taken back by real people. Not just elitists snobs and trekkie wonks that create policy reports to substantiate the most obvious of weak and negative policies.

    As for Jim Webb: Locked on and tracking this guy. He has been watching his P’s & Q’s for over a year. My guess, he joins Perriello on the GR8 progressive high-water shelf.

  • triman0777

    There were two ways this article could have been written: 1) Provide zero insight or reason, call Sen. Kyl names like a grade-schooler.
    2) State why Sen. Kyl believes his opinion, state with facts why he is wrong, and if so inclined call him some names.

    Some “journalistic standard”.

    I am too busy raising my children to be responsible adults and not dregs on society to get policy nuances. Frankly, I would like to see some maturity from both political sides. Clearly, I hit the wrong URL. That and $1 will get you Newsweek.

blog comments powered by Disqus