Can We Finally Call Out the GOP for Being Against Our National Security With Regards to the START Treaty?

President Obama & General Powell Push for a New START


From Wikipedia

START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 . The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR, that barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.

The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new START treaty was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. It will enter into force after its ratification through the parliaments of both countries.

PROPOSAL
The first START proposal was presented by United States President Ronald Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982. Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time.[2] The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well.

So, the original START Treaty was presented by GOP Hero Ronald Reagan. Ronald ' He defeated the Commies' Reagan.

The President has negotiated START II, and now it needs ratification by the Senate. The problem with is that all treaties need 2/3 majority in the Senate to be ratified.

Of course, the problem is the GOP. They suddenly have a problem with START II.

WHY?

Because President Obama negotiated it.

If this had been George Bush, and he had negotiated anything with our international allies, the first thing that would have been said about any Democrat who opposed it was how the Democrats were once again ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. And, how dare they oppose the President. Aren't they REAL Americans?

You know it. I know it.

START II IS about the national security of the United States of America, and these mofos could care less. It's quite obvious that they could care less. How bad is it?

This is what the dean of GOP Foreign Policy in the Senate - Richard Lugar of Indiana has said to his colleagues:

LUGAR: Please do your duty for your country. We do not have verification of the Russian nuclear posture right now. We’re not going to have it until we sign the START treaty. We’re not going to be able to get rid of further missiles and warheads aimed at us. I state it candidly to my colleagues, one of those warheads…could demolish my city of Indianapolis — obliterate it! Now Americans may have forgotten that. I’ve not forgotten it and I think that most people who are concentrating on the START treaty want to move ahead to move down the ladder of the number of weapons aimed at us.

Here is Kyl of Arizona on MTP this past weekend. Please note that they've had the treaty in their hands for MONTHS.

Appearing on Meet The Press, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that the Senate would not be able to ratify the START treaty during the lame-duck session: "If the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, were to allow a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment of the resolution of ratification, then theoretically there would be time. But he has made it clear that he has a different agenda in mind. And I, I think clearly they've got to set some priorities here. Are they going to deal with the funding of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year? They've got to do that. Are they going to deal with the issue which is on everybody's mind, that you mentioned earlier, and that is to ensure that we don't have a big tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of the country. These are higher priority items."

Higher priority than the national security of the United States?

G-T-F-O-H


You have other Republicans calling the Senate out for their insanity.

From ThinkProgress:

Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption’

In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.

Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

THIS from the man who brought us Unca Clarence.

Richard Lugar, could in no way, be considered a liberal anything. Hell, he couldn't even be considered a moderate anything. He is a conservative, but the man actually thinks about the national security of this country over getting a defeat of the President.

Imagine that - National Security of America and what's in America's international best interests - EVEN IF IT GIVES PRESIDENT OBAMA A WIN - over being a loyal GOP slop.

A REAL American, would want our country to be safe internationally. Would want this country to be in good standing - around the world.

These people are not Real Americans. They are not Good Americans. And, the left has to stop believing that they have any redeeming qualities. That they are nothing but powerhungry animals who could give a rat's ass if this country goes down the tubes, as long as they are in power and can loot the treasury for their friends. They have had MONTHS to look over this treaty. The only reason why they are objecting is because they don't want the President to get any credit for an International Foreign Policy Success.

PERIOD.

A sum up of the GOP Obstructionists with START II on Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Janet Napolitano In the Middle Of Gulf Oil Spill Crisis

Paraphrased by the New York Times in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Disaster as saying:

'she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful'. (They did...and have for years).

Lesson - This is why politicians have no business in these kinds of positions -- Director of Homeland Security, FBI director, FEMA director, TSA chief, OSHA chief, EPA chief, CDC director, HHS Secretary, FDA director, Consumer Product Safety Commissioners (CPSC), director of MMS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Secretary of Defense, etc. These are crucial positions that involve emergency management & response, public safety, and national security/defense. They require leaders to have a clue about what the Hell is going on. Heads of these agencies and departments should have some level of expertise and experience in the kinds of work that they are directing.

This is one of the big reasons why I didn't care for her selection for DHS director. She's a politician. Not a national security person. Not an emergency manager. Not a public safety person. Not a law enforcement person. Not a security expert. Not a first responder. You should have some practical experience in at least one of these areas if you are going to be the Homeland Security chief.
There were tons of more qualified individuals (including some Black Americans... although I don't have a racial litmus test) who could have been chosen for this position.

Republican Crazies Are Complaining About The Handling of Times Square Terrorist

I expected that the crazies would start complaining about the Times Square event. It didn't take them long at all. The idiots claim that providing miranda to a citizen is somehow out of step with Federal law and our legal norms. Of course this has been done since Miranda V. Arizona almost half a century ago. But who cares about the facts? Who cares about facts when you are a Republican and you live in a fantasyland where you can make up your own reality - a reality that you can get gullible American voters to buy into?

John McCain, one of the main complainers, is a U.S. Senator and should know the laws in this Country. This man scares the Hell out of me. I always thought he was somewhat of a whackjob. It's amazing that he almost became President. In fact, McCain would probably be President right now if not for Bush's economic crisis. Even with the unpopularity of Bush and the Republican Party, McCain was headed for victory (according to polling) against Obama prior to the economic collapse in the Fall of 2008. We definitely dodged a bullet.

Joe Lieberman took the crazy a step further by suggesting that Shahzad should have his citizenship taken away in order to eliminate the need for miranda or a trial in the Federal Courts.

From Huffpost:

Lieberman argued that if an act of terrorism was coordinated with a group designated as a terrorist organization, then an American involved with such a group would lose citizenship and the constitutional protections that come with it.

Ummm, excuse me Mr. Lieberman, but does that also include the Right wing Christian Conservatives, the Tea Party radicals, and White Supremacist terror groups that have been embraced by the Republican Party, either tacitly or out in the open? What about the members of Congress who are associated with radical extremists on the right and who stoke fear? I wonder how that would work out.

Faisal Shahzad Arrested for Attempted Times Square Attack

Possible Co-conspirator(s) Arrested Overseas

Lessons Learned? Unfortunately There Probably Won't Be. It May Even Send The Country Into A Deeper State of Complacency.

Faisal Shahzad, a 30 year old originally from Pakistan was arrested in the nick of time at JFK airport overnight. He was apparently taken off an aircraft, just before departure. More here.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before we started to see this kind of activity here in the U.S. (Car bomb attempts, IED's, etc). More of these events are probably inevitable. Unfortunately, the level of security in the U.S. is woefully inadequate for dealing with these types of threats. It was luck that prevented a disaster in Times Square.

The U.S. still has gaping holes in its security. At the moment, there is no effective comprehensive or cohesive security strategy. The U.S. system relies too heavily on the intelligence community on one extreme, and too heavily on conventional military power on the other extreme. In the middle lies a big hole (domestic security). I have always been baffled by this notion that the intelligence community should be able to stop every event. Traditionally, this has never been the role of intelligence. It was never meant to be 100%, 90% or even 80% effective in thwarting terrorist attacks. Intelligence - which began as a military concept - is just a tool in a much larger toolbox. It was traditionally meant to be used in conjunction with other resources, not as the end all be all. But due to sensational media coverage since 9/11, Americans have come to believe and expect that intelligence could magically stop everything. Events that go undetected are often mistakenly labeled as "intelligence failures"....regardless of whether they are really failures or not. In an open society like the one we have in the U.S., the best intelligence system will only stop about 50% of incidents like the Times Square event (and that's pretty good).

That "middle" that I mentioned includes an immigration system that should be more effective at screening who enters the country, should have a more effective vetting system for entrants from certain parts of the globe, should have a more selective system for determining who receives residency status, citizenship, etc. The "middle" also refers to a better ability to track suspects, the need for a system to limit or prevent the purchase of ingredients that could be used for IED's (ammonium nitrate for example), and soft targets, including high value targets, that are wide open. Our passenger rail systems, metro train systems, bus systems, and passenger ships are all inadequately protected. Commercial rail, which transports tons of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas, also lacks adequate security measures.

The U.S. also needs to utilize biometric ID technology. State ID's and drivers licenses should be tamper proof. Federal law should require ID and information to be recorded whenever there is a private transaction involving the sale of automobiles,
hazardous store-bought ingredients that could have dual uses, etc. Certain items shouldn't be available for sale at all, unless the customer can demonstrate a legitimate use for the materials. Americans would be surprised at what kinds of materials are available over the counter.

The biggest part of the gaping hole in the "middle" is the private security sector. We have a private security industry in the U.S. that is a complete joke. While other countries such as India, Israel, and much of Europe have nationalized most aspects of their security (like the nationalization of Health Care for example), the U.S. maintains a weak private, for-profit, security system. In the years to come, Americans will unfortunately begin to see how bad this really is. It's one of those gaping holes that has always been there, but won't be fully understood until there is a catastrophe. I recall flying from Germany one year (way back in the 80's) to come home for some kind of family visit, and I remember how strong the security was. The screening agents, even back then, worked for the State (West Germany at the time). It took a tragedy like 9/11 to get the U.S. to nationalize its screening operations (although the private screeners were not directly responsible for 9/11... they were used as a convenient scapegoat). But there have been other cases where private screeners, which worked directly for the airlines, proved inadequate. It was nonsensical to put airlines in charge of their own security screening operations. The whole concept was flawed from the beginning.

Hopefully the U.S. will wake up and strengthen its security posture before these sorts of events become the new normal.