another example of how 1 senator can derail an entire agenda

gimmesometruth27

seriously, can we ever get anything done when it only takes one senator to delay or stall something? this treaty in an important step in our relations with russia and john kyl of arizona is holding it up...i can see how this can threaten our national security by not coming to an agreement now. and i thought it was the dems who were allegedly "soft on national security"....and anyway, how many nukes do we really need? especially where it is less and less likely we will ever use ONE of them again, let alone 2200, or even 1550...

GOP senator deals setback to nuclear treaty

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101117/ap_ ... ia_nuclear

WASHINGTON – An agreement between the United States and Russia to slash their nuclear arsenals was in danger of collapse Tuesday after an influential Republican senator said it should not be voted on this year.

With a terse statement, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., dealt a major setback to President Barack Obama's efforts to improve ties with Russia and to his broader strategy for reducing nuclear arms worldwide. The treaty, known as New START, had been seen as one of Obama's top foreign policy accomplishments.

Without the support of Kyl, the leading Republican voice on the treaty, Democrats have little hope of securing at least eight Republican votes, the minimum they would need for ratification in the Senate. His stance, unless reversed, would delay the vote until the newly elected Senate, with an expanded Republican minority, is sworn in next year. Democrats would then need the support of at least 14 Republicans.

The White House has been trying to avoid a vote next year, knowing that ratification could slip out of reach in the face of opposition to the treaty from most Republicans and an increasingly partisan political environment.

At a minimum, a 2011 vote would probably set the treaty back for months, because Republicans are likely to demand new hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so that newly elected lawmakers could be briefed.

Following the setback, Vice President Joe Biden warned that a failure to approve the treaty this year would endanger national security. He pointed out that the treaty would renew U.S. authority that expired last year to inspect Russia's nuclear arsenal.

Senate Democrats were holding out hope. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said that he had discussed the issue with Kyl on Tuesday and believed the door was still open to a vote before the end of the year.

"Ratifying New START is not a political choice, it's a national security imperative," Kerry said.

But Kyl's statement appeared to leave little room to resolve the issue quickly. He said that he told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that he did not believe the treaty could be considered this year.

The treaty would reduce U.S. and Russian limits on strategic warheads to 1,550 for each country from the current ceiling of 2,200. It also would set up new procedures to allow both countries to inspect each other's arsenals to verify compliance.

Republicans have argued that the treaty would limit U.S. missile defense options and does not provide adequate procedures to verify that Russia is living up to its terms.

Kyl has argued that it doesn't make sense to reduce the U.S. warheads until more is done to maintain and modernize the remaining arsenal.

Last week the administration sought to satisfy Kyl's conditions for supporting the treaty with a proposal to significantly boost funding for the nation's nuclear weapons complex. A congressional aide briefed on White House plans told The Associated Press last week that the White House was proposing to add $4.1 billion that would go to maintaining and modernizing the arsenal and the laboratories that oversee that effort. U.S. government officials traveled to Kyl's home state of Arizona to make the proposal.

Over the weekend, Obama had expressed optimism on the treaty's prospects.

But Kyl appeared to surprise the administration with a statement against quick passage that cited "unresolved issues related to START and modernization."

The Kyl statement came on a day of renewed friction with Russia stemming from Thailand's extradition to the United States of a Russian accused of illegal arms sales. The move by Thai authorities followed a diplomatic tug-of-war between Washington and Moscow.

Russia has said that it will seek to ratify the treaty simultaneously with a U.S. vote.

dirtymike

yeah that makes sense (sarcasm) why not just stick with the old cold war idealogy and just bulk up with 5 million nuclear warheads "just in case" i seriously think anyone who doesnt see he has a personal agenda or thinks "well hes right" is a tool and a puppet. the guy is obviously playing politics to roadblock Obama from accomplishing anything. This is the state of the world we're talking about asshole! Now is not the time to play politics or prove your point that you think Obama sucks

Jason P

Even though I'm not from AZ, I wrote a letter to Senator Kyl asking for him to reconsider his stance. Here is the link if anyone else is interested.

http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

Even though I'm not from AZ, I wrote a letter to Senator Kyl asking for him to reconsider his stance. Here is the link if anyone else is interested.

http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

thanks for the link. i will definitely send a letter this afternoon. this is getting to be ridiculous anymore.

seriously, if one senator opposes it 8 more will stand in lockstep with him and oppose it? what a disgrace to the human race this guy is...

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Even though I'm not from AZ, I wrote a letter to Senator Kyl asking for him to reconsider his stance. Here is the link if anyone else is interested.

http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

thanks for the link. i will definitely send a letter this afternoon. this is getting to be ridiculous anymore.

seriously, if one senator opposes it 8 more will stand in lockstep with him and oppose it? what a disgrace to the human race this guy is...

I think this would be an excellent opportunity for the Democrats and Republicans to work together on reducing the world's nuclear arsenal and perhaps reducing tension with the other big kid on the block. If anyone is opposed, don't worry because the U.S. and Russia still get to keep 1,500 nuclear weapons each . . . I think that will still be enough to create a big enough fallout to impact every living creature on the earth.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

I think this would be an excellent opportunity for the Democrats and Republicans to work together on reducing the world's nuclear arsenal and perhaps reducing tension with the other big kid on the block. If anyone is opposed, don't worry because the U.S. and Russia still get to keep 1,500 nuclear weapons each . . . I think that will still be enough to create a big enough fallout to impact every living creature on the earth.

the thing is tho ... the motivation for opposing has nothing to do with security ... it's about derailing an administration ... the less obama acccomplishes, the more they can say his presidency was a failure ... partisan politics is in full flight ... the smear campaign on obama the past year has been pretty effective ...

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I think this would be an excellent opportunity for the Democrats and Republicans to work together on reducing the world's nuclear arsenal and perhaps reducing tension with the other big kid on the block. If anyone is opposed, don't worry because the U.S. and Russia still get to keep 1,500 nuclear weapons each . . . I think that will still be enough to create a big enough fallout to impact every living creature on the earth.

the thing is tho ... the motivation for opposing has nothing to do with security ... it's about derailing an administration ... the less obama acccomplishes, the more they can say his presidency was a failure ... partisan politics is in full flight ... the smear campaign on obama the past year has been pretty effective ...

agreed. it is disgusting to me to think that eliminating these weapons takes second priority to derailing this administration. it seriously makes me sick to my stomach.

g under p

Jason P wrote:

Even though I'm not from AZ, I wrote a letter to Senator Kyl asking for him to reconsider his stance. Here is the link if anyone else is interested.

http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

We have a home now in Phoenix AZ and I gave them that address. I sent pretty clear and precise message as why would he want to hold up such a treaty. Hopefully I'll get a phone call or an email back from his office. I won't hold my breath though.

Peace

Electric_Delta

Can anyone prove Russia will hold up their end of the bargain?

blackredyellow

Electric_Delta wrote:

Can anyone prove Russia will hold up their end of the bargain?

Honestly, does it really matter? 2,200 nuclear weapons down to 1,500... chances are the 700 we'd get rid of our so outdated anyway, and the 1,500 could still destroy the planet many times over.

Kyl is a partisan jackass who cares more about a (D) or (R) than THE U.S.A.

Cosmo

Electric_Delta wrote:

Can anyone prove Russia will hold up their end of the bargain?

...
Can you prove that they won't? Or that WE will?
...
In other words... Why the hell are you asking US? We are Pearl Jam fans... we don't count the nuclear warheads in our arsenal.

Electric_Delta

Cosmo wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Can anyone prove Russia will hold up their end of the bargain?

...
Can you prove that they won't? Or that WE will?
...
In other words... Why the hell are you asking US? We are Pearl Jam fans... we don't count the nuclear warheads in our arsenal.

Well, by that rationale I suppose we shouldn't even discuss it.

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Can anyone prove Russia will hold up their end of the bargain?

...
Can you prove that they won't? Or that WE will?
...
In other words... Why the hell are you asking US? We are Pearl Jam fans... we don't count the nuclear warheads in our arsenal.

Well, by that rationale I suppose we shouldn't even discuss it.

the treaty has a clause written in it where there will be inspectors to monitor the number of nukes and make sure that nothing shady is going on on both sides. it is an auditing and accounting system. if there is no treaty there are no inspectors and no auditing. i completely believe that it is in our best interests to ratify that treaty.

i am sure the gop will stall it and then when the new congress takes over they will ratify it and say "see look what we got passed " the disgusting part is that this treaty was signed in APRIL and it is just now coming up for a vote to ratify it..

gimmesometruth27

ok seriously, what the fuck are the republican senators doing here? this is an outrage and it makes the US look like a bunch of fucking tools because we can not ratify a nuclear arms reduction treaty that has been signed by both medvedev and obama. the rest of the world is looking to both countries in this situation and we are not just failing ourselves and the russians, but without this auditing process built into the treaty we can not guarantee that the russians are upholding their end. the repbulicans are putting politics over common sense and national security in this case and it is really beginning to piss me off now.

Obama-GOP showdown over nuclear pact with Russia


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_russia_nuclear

WASHINGTON – Insisting the nation's security could be in peril, President Barack Obama rallied former diplomatic and military chiefs from both parties Thursday to pressure reluctant Republican senators to ratify a nuclear weapons deal with Russia. He predicted he would gain the votes this year, though foes gave him little chance of success.

The ratification fight is testing both the power of the president and relations between the world's two nuclear giants. Obama set the stakes ominously high, warning of an unchecked Russian nuclear arsenal, undermined credibility of the United States and unraveling global unity about how to contain a rogue Iran.

"It is a national security imperative," Obama declared from the White House. He surrounded himself in the Roosevelt Room with respected diplomats and military leaders of the modern era, including those from Republican administrations, in an attempt to portray statesmanship rising above politics.

Yet key Senate Republicans held their ground, underscoring Obama's difficulty in rescuing one of his foreign policy priorities. It was an early challenge to his political strength, just two weeks after the Republicans handily won the midterm elections.

It was unclear how Obama could muster the 67 votes he needs in the 100-person Senate to win ratification before Congress ends its current wrap-up session. Discussions took place by the hour Thursday, by phone and in private corners.

"I remain convinced it's too tall a lift to do it in the lame duck session, but everyone's still talking," said Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, whose support is seen as pivotal for his party. Kyl startled the White House with that position earlier in the week, prompting Obama to begin lobbying more publicly and forcefully.

The pact would reduce the limits on strategic warheads held by the United States and Russia and would set up a system so each could inspect and verify the other's arsenal. Those points alone are of huge significance to both governments as a matter of mutual security and leadership to a watching world.

The broader issue is the strength of the vital U.S.-Russia relationship.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the treaty months ago. If the Senate balks, the White House believes Russia's cooperation on other difficult issues could erode. In fact, the two presidents have already discussed the likelihood of that.

Russia's support is vital to the United States in providing supply help for the war in Afghanistan, strengthening international pressure on Iran over its nuclear intentions and securing nuclear materials around the globe.

On Capitol Hill, Republican opposition is rooted in varying arguments: doubts about the strength of verification procedures, concerns about whether the treaty would limit U.S. missile defense options, skepticism about whether the Senate can squeeze a vote into a packed, final legislative session.

Looming over all that is the prospect that Republicans, still basking in election victories, could deny the president a major foreign policy victory.

"It would be a serious problem if the Senate does not approve the treaty," said John B. Bellinger III, a legal adviser to the State Department and the National Security Council during President George W. Bush's administration. "You can certainly understand that every other country in the world, and particularly major powers like China, the next time they are in negotiations with the United States — this will hurt us if they think our negotiators can't make good on their word."

One reason Obama is pressing for action so urgently is that there is no assurance the next Senate, which will convene in January with more Republicans, will ratify the pact anytime soon, if at all. At best, a renewed hearing process could take months.

In the current Senate, at least eight Republicans would have to join the Democratic bloc of 59 votes for ratification.

"I'm confident that we should be able to get the votes," Obama said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sounded not quite as upbeat, telling reporters: "We're going to do our best to get a vote on the START treaty."

Once the newly elected Senate is seated in January, Democrats will need the support of at least 14 Republicans.

Suggesting how difficult that would be, 10 of the newly elected Republican senators said Thursday they supported Kyl's call for delay. In a statement, they said the nuclear pact "would dramatically reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent."

Still, the White House sees an achievable task in winning over Republicans on grounds of national security. It has already promised a sweetener of more than $4 billion over five years to modernize America's nuclear arsenal, a promise aimed particularly to win Kyl's support.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., met on Thursday with Kyl, the GOP point man on the treaty, and several other Republican senators whose votes would be critical to ratification, including Bob Corker of Tennessee, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and John Thune of South Dakota. "Continued discussions are always helpful," said John McCain of Arizona, top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, who attended the meeting.

Thune said he didn't think the Senate should vote on the treaty before the end of the year. "There are too many unresolved issues," he said. Nevertheless, he said he expected to hear from administration officials in the coming days as they "start to turn up the decibel level."

Obama was intent on doing that. He entrusted Vice President Joe Biden, a longtime voice in the Senate, to "focus on this issue day and night until it gets done."

And, along with summoning some of his own top brass, the president brought in what he called "some of the most able statesmen from both parties." They included former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright, James Baker III and Henry Kissinger, former defense secretaries William Perry and William Cohen and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

"This is not a matter that can be delayed," Obama said. "Every month that goes by without a treaty means that we are not able to verify what's going on on the ground in Russia. And if we delay indefinitely, American leadership on nonproliferation and America's national security will be weakened."

Two potential Republican candidates for president — Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin — both have come out against the pact.

As for the public, two-thirds of Americans believe the Senate should ratify the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, according to an Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted earlier this month. Besides a strong majority of Democrats, supporters include more than six in 10 Republicans.

Cosmo

Electric_Delta wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Can anyone prove Russia will hold up their end of the bargain?

...
Can you prove that they won't? Or that WE will?
...
In other words... Why the hell are you asking US? We are Pearl Jam fans... we don't count the nuclear warheads in our arsenal.

Well, by that rationale I suppose we shouldn't even discuss it.

...
Aren't you the one that is always railing about the corrupt and distrustful government we possess? What make you think that OUR government will hold up our end of the bargain?
...
And no... no one here can prove that the Russians are holding up their end of the bargain... which prompted me to wonder why you would ask any of us if WE could provide you any proof.

Electric_Delta

...
Aren't you the one that is always railing about the corrupt and distrustful government we possess? What make you think that OUR government will hold up our end of the bargain?
...
And no... no one here can prove that the Russians are holding up their end of the bargain... which prompted me to wonder why you would ask any of us if WE could provide you any proof.[/quote]



I meant what proof is there Russia will hold up their side of the bargain. I thought that was obvious.

Also, it was more of a rhetorical question. I'm prompted to ask why anyone was assuming I would ask random rock band followers to prove how a foreign military power can prove they are appropriately honoring an arms treaty.

Seriously?

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

...
Aren't you the one that is always railing about the corrupt and distrustful government we possess? What make you think that OUR government will hold up our end of the bargain?
...
And no... no one here can prove that the Russians are holding up their end of the bargain... which prompted me to wonder why you would ask any of us if WE could provide you any proof.

I meant what proof is there Russia will hold up their side of the bargain. I thought that was obvious.[/quote]









the treaty has oversight written into it where at any time we can inspect their stockpile and check numbers and they can do the same for us. so it boils down to:

treaty= oversight, and a guarantee that both sides are playing fairly

or

no treaty= no oversight, and potential for one or both sides to not uphold their end of the bargain.

there is oversight written into that treaty that was signed by obama and medvedev..

kyl saying there is "no time to consider this treaty" is an outright lie. it is interesting to note that the fewest "yes" votes ever in the senate in favor of any nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been either 84 or 87 under Reagan. throughout american history most all votes on these non-proliferation treaties have been unanimous in favor of the treaty. kyl is playing politics plain and simple, and is only stalling so he can take credit for it in the new year....anything to make obama look weak or bad....

sorry that this is in red, but someone screwed up when quoting and i am not investigating to try to fix it...

Cosmo

Electric_Delta wrote:

I meant what proof is there Russia will hold up their side of the bargain. I thought that was obvious.

Also, it was more of a rhetorical question. I'm prompted to ask why anyone was assuming I would ask random rock band followers to prove how a foreign military power can prove they are appropriately honoring an arms treaty.

Seriously?

...
Good... I'm glad that is cleared up. No one here can provide you proof that Russia will keep up their end of the bargain.
...
However, the government does have people that will seek verification of arms reduction... as does it have people that will validate to the Russians that we are holding up our end of the treaty. Trust... but, VERIFY. Our Governments have been doing this for a long time.

cajunkiwi

Electric_Delta wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Can anyone prove Russia will hold up their end of the bargain?

...
Can you prove that they won't? Or that WE will?
...
In other words... Why the hell are you asking US? We are Pearl Jam fans... we don't count the nuclear warheads in our arsenal.

Well, by that rationale I suppose we shouldn't even discuss it.

By your rationale, the government shouldn't enter into any agreements with foreign nations lol

gimmesometruth27

Kyl 'will work very hard' to kill START this year
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... this-year-

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Republican leaders’ top point man on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty said Tuesday that he "will work very hard" to ensure that the treaty is not ratified if it's brought to the Senate floor in the waning days of the lame duck session.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., argues that there is not enough time to thoroughly debate and possibly amend the START measure before the Senate adjourns for the year. Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring the treaty to the Senate floor following completion of the tax cuts bill this week.

"I let the Majority Leader know that's an issue for a lot of my colleagues," Kyl told reporters Tuesday. "And if he does bring it up, I will work very hard to achieve that result, namely that the treaty fails."

Treaty supporters touted Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe's announcement last week that she will support ratification. But Snowe’s statement of support included a caveat that echoed Kyl's concerns: in a written release, she said she will vote to approve the measure as long as Reid offers it in "a framework that allows for sufficient debate and amendments."

At a news conference today, Reid said he had enough Republican support to secure the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty, which is a top priority of the White House.

But Kyl was quick to disagree with that assessment.

"I will resist the temptation to go over the record of things where the Majority Leader had predicted something prematurely," Kyl said.

After standing at the podium silently for a few moments, he added with a grin, "If I'm really going to resist the temptation, I better resist the temptation."


it has already been signed by obama and medvedev. what is here to debate and possibly change??? kyl is just being a prick, nothing more.

gimmesometruth27

they are lining up like lemmings walking off of a cliff....

Mitch McConnell Announces He Will Oppose New START Treaty
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/1 ... 98754.html

WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will oppose the new START Treaty, a bilateral arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia that is one of President Obama's top foreign relations priorities.

"I've decided I cannot support the treaty," said McConnell on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning. "I think the verification provisions are inadequate, and I do worry about missile defense implications."

On Saturday, the Senate defeated an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another opponent of the agreement, to amend the treaty's preamble by separating the issue of missile defense from efforts to reduce American and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Ma.) strongly objected to McCain's move, pointing out that the preamble is not a binding part of the document and such changes would slow down the approval process by months.

The amendment "requires us to go back to the Russians and renegotiate," said Kerry. "That's a treaty-killer."

On Saturday, President Obama issued a letter clarifying the treaty's stance on missile defense, saying it "places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs." He promised to "take every action available to me to support the deployment of all four phases" of a missile defense system in Europe.

On CNN, McConnell said the letter wasn't adequate, because "an equally important question is how do the Russians view missile defense and how do our European allies view missile defense, and I'm concerned about it."

"I think if they'd taken more time with this -- rushing it right before Christmas, it strikes me as trying to jam us," continued McConnell. "I think if they'd taken more time, I know the members of the Foreign Relations Committee spent a lot of time on this but the rest of us haven't, and so all of the sudden we're once again trying to rush things right here before Christmas Eve. I think that was not the best way to get the support of people like me."

On "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the chief Republican negotiator on the treaty, said he would "absolutely" vote against the treaty if the preamble is not changed. "We're just a rubber stamp for the administration and the Russians -- the administration that for the first time wasn't willing to stand up to the Russians and say you're not going to implicate our missile defense. That's why I say, talk to the Russians; don't send a letter to Mitch McConnell." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he believed Democrats had the 67 votes necessary to ratify the treaty.

The treaty is essentially an update and extension of a treaty negotiated by President Ronald Reagan, who was a strong advocate of missile defense. It has the widespread support of military officials and foreign policy experts from both Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as the backing of President George H.W. Bush. Seventy-three percent of the American public also support ratification.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has asked the Senate to pass it in the lame duck session, saying last month, "I think is that there is a sense of urgency with respect to ratifying this treaty that needs to be both recognized. Historically this has been bipartisan. This is a national security issue of great significance. And the sooner we get it done, the better."

UPDATE, 10:34 a.m.: On CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said, "If you really want to have a chance to ratify START, you better start over and do it in the next Congress because this lame duck has been poisoned." Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin replied, "Previous treaties, like START treaties, have not had longer periods of debate than the two weeks we've devoted to this treaty."

UPDATE, 11:18 a.m.: From an exchange on ABC's "This Week" between host Christiane Amanpour and Kerry:

AMANPOUR: And on the substance of the complaints by Senator McCain and others that this treaty somehow impairs and impedes the United States' ability for its missile defense shield, what are the facts that you can tell them about that?
KERRY: The most significant fact of all is that the general in charge of our Missile Defense Agency, who is responsible for this program, says unequivocally, in testimony between the Armed Services Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and publicly, there is no restraint, zero, none, no restraint whatsoever on our missile defense capacity. Secretary Gates says it. Secretary Clinton says it. The -- the intelligence community says it. All of our military leaders want this treaty.