another example of how 1 senator can derail an entire agenda
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
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.
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.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
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...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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 ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
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.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well, by that rationale I suppose we shouldn't even discuss it.
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
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
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?
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...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
By your rationale, the government shouldn't enter into any agreements with foreign nations lol
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.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Can anyone prove the U.S will hold up their end of the bargain?
We already touched on this, thanks.
wikileaks has given me all of the evidence i need for that opinion.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the gop does not care. 73% of americans want this ratified, including all branches of service..
Arms treaty debate increasingly testy in Senate
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Debate in the Senate over President Barack Obama's strategic nuclear arms treaty with Russia grew increasingly testy on Monday but the White House expressed confidence lawmakers would approve the accord before their Christmas break.
Republican senators pushed for passage of a series of amendments in an effort to kill the New START nuclear arms treaty by forcing a renegotiation with Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned in an interview with Interfax that any amendment would be a deal-breaker.
The treaty, which would cut deployed strategic atomic weapons to 1,550 for each side within seven years, is one of President Barack Obama's top priorities for the current legislative session. The White House said the president was calling senators to line up support.
The agreement, signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, is a centerpiece of the U.S. leader's bid to "re-set" relations with Russia, whose assistance Washington has recently sought on issues ranging from Iran's nuclear program to Afghanistan.
Analysts say Senate rejection of the treaty would be a major blow to warming ties between the two countries, leading the Kremlin to question Obama's ability to deliver on major bilateral issues and giving ammunition to Russian hawks who oppose the thaw in relations with Washington.
The collapse of the pact would also inflict political damage on Medvedev, who has embraced Obama's efforts to improve relations and stepped up Russian support for U.S. efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program.
The treaty has become bogged down in partisan feuding in the Senate. Republican senators have become increasingly frustrated over the Democrats' press to complete as much legislation as possible before a new Congress with greater Republican representation takes office on January 5.
Democrats moved on Sunday to end debate on the treaty and force a vote by Thursday. It was unclear whether they could muster the two-thirds majority need for approval of the treaty in the 100-member Senate.
POLITICAL CHECKLIST
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell charged that the administration was rushing lawmakers to a decision on the arms treaty in order to "tick off another item on someone's political check list before the end of the year."
"The American people don't want us to squeeze our most important work into the final days of a session," McConnell said.
But Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry rejected that the decision was rushed, noting senators have been working on it for 18 months and had repeatedly delayed debate at the request of Republicans who wanted more time.
McConnell and several other senior Republicans announced on Sunday they would vote against the agreement, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama was working the phones trying to sway senators to support the treaty and was confident of approval this week.
"The White House believes that before Congress leaves town the Senate will ratify the new START treaty," Gibbs told reporters at a White House briefing.
There has been far less public or political debate over the treaty in Russia. The Russian State Duma has yet to approve the accord and Medvedev has made clear that parliament should not ratify the treaty until U.S. Senate approval is certain.
Konstantin Kosachyov, the pro-Kremlin chairman of the international affairs committee, said Russian lawmakers would carefully examine the U.S. Senate's resolution of ratification and other declarations before proceeding with their own vote.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Nice to see some of the Republican give Senator Kyle the cold shoulder and proceed on the recommendation of the military leaders. The last thing we need to do is to restart the Cold War just to weaken Obama's agenda.
US poised to approve nuclear arms pact with Russia - Yahoo News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_russia_nuclear;_ylt=AjgtP.hKERy17rOD5HAh0pus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrMml0b3JmBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMjIyL3VzX3VzX3J1c3NpYV9udWNsZWFyBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDdXNwb2lzZWR0b2Fw
things will be just as divided next month and it will last until next december..
wow, 2 weeks ago i thought obama was dead in the water, but the lame duck session gave him everything he wanted except for the dream act and middle class only tax relief...that is impressive for any president in the last 50 years.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."