Shaheen to DeMint: Stop Gambling with National Security

by: Dean Barker

Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 18:38:12 PM EST

"Senator DeMint is arguing that this treaty somehow weakens our national security and limits our strategic options. His argument has little basis in reality.  Senator DeMint is opposed by every living former Secretary of State, five former Secretaries of Defense, nine former National Security Advisors, seven former commanders of our strategic nuclear weapons, and former President George H. W. Bush.  All of these national security heavyweights argue the exact opposite of Senator DeMint, and they all agree that the New START Treaty strengthens our national security.  

"The New START Treaty has the unanimous backing of America's military leadership and America's NATO allies, and according to the most recent CBS News poll, the treaty now has the support of 82 percent of Americans.

Full release below the fold...

Time to START

by: Gary Patton

Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 13:33:25 PM EST

"Speaking of atomic bombs, Crawford," I replied, "Maybe, you can answer some questions about the START treaty. According to the New York Times, "The treaty, the first with Russia in a decade, calls for both sides to reduce their deployed (atomic)warheads modestly to 1,550 from 2,200. More important, it would restore 'verification,' inspections and other exchanges of information about the American and Russian arsenals."

"Following up on those points , Keith Olbermann on Countdown stressed the importance of verification. He said, 'And the real danger is not so much us getting into a nuclear exchange now that the Cold War is over, but some of that material falling into the wrong hands. And if we can't verify and go in and inspect, we don't know where it is. And we do know that groups like Al Qaeda have tried to get the material, the so-called 'loose nukes' from Russia because it's not hard to make a bomb. It's hard to get the material.'"

"Well, I hear you flapping your lips a lot, Patton, but I don't hear any questions. Just what's your problem?

"My problem, Crawford, is that Republicans are blocking passage of the START treaty."

"I'm not surprised," replied Crawford. "You dim bulb Dems probably gave away the store when the Obama administration negotiated the treaty with Russia. I'll bet a whole lot of Americans are opposed to the START treaty."

"Wrong on all counts, Crawford. Rachel Maddow noted widespread support for the START treaty. She said, 'And that's why Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn and Bill Cohen and Brent Scowcroft all met in D.C. today with President Obama to express their astonishment that Republicans in the Senate, led by John Kyl of all people, are currently blocking the president's new treaty on nukes with Russia.'"

"This group," Maddow continues, "is not a Democratic tableau. This is not a partisan crew. These are not liberals. This is Republican and Democratic secretaries of state and defense saying this in one thing you guys really don't want to screw up."

"What's more," I added, "a CNN/Opinion Research Poll showed this month that 73 percent of Americans support the START treaty. Republican resistance to the START looks like yet another attempt by the GOP to deny President Obama any political victories, so that he'll be easier to defeat in a 2012 run for a second term. Republicans always talk about how patriotic they are. Yet, once again, they're willing to put a grab for political power ahead of the well being of the United States. Some kind of patriots. You'd think that voters would get wise to the GOP's tactics."

"Wait a minute," said Crawford, "just wait a gosh darn minute. Democrats are trying to rush the START treaty to passage during the lame duck session which lasts only a few weeks. There's no way to pass such a complicated treaty in such a short period of time, particularly when other bills are being considered."

"That's just a convenient excuse, Crawford," I responded. This treaty has been studied to death. President Obama was quoted in the Boston Globe as saying, 'If the Senate doesn't act this year - after six months, 18 hearings, and nearly a thousand questions answered - it would have to start over from scratch in January.'"

"The New York Times adds, 'there have already been countless briefings and 21 Senate hearings on the treaty - sufficient for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the country's top military leaders, six former secretaries of state (from both parties), five former secretaries of defense (from both parties) and seven former nuclear weapons commanders to endorse it.'"

"The real question is why the public tolerates repeated Republican grabs for power which place its self interest ahead of the well being of the nation and, in this case, the safety of its citizens."

Sad and Completely Predictable

by: Dean Barker

Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 07:08:53 AM EST

"Without ratification this year, the United States will have no inspectors on the ground, and no ability to verify Russian nuclear activities," Obama said in his weekly radio address.

"Without ratification, we put at risk the coalition that we have built to put pressure on Iran, and the transit route through Russia that we use to equip our troops in Afghanistan," the president continued.

"And without ratification, we risk undoing decades of American leadership on nuclear security, and decades of bipartisanship on this issue. Our security and our position in the world are at stake."

Sarah Palin endorsed Kelly Ayotte thinks we should wait. Conservatives aren't naive about why, and we shouldn't be either:

As Republican numbers go up, the chances of the treaty's ratification go down. We all know this. This isn't a choice between ratifying in December and ratifying in January. It is a choice between voting on the treaty, and delaying consideration of the treaty on the Senate floor for months or even longer. If the treaty is worth supporting and should be ratified, it really does matter that this happen now. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs describes the treaty as "essential" to national security. Maybe he's exaggerating for effect, but I don't think that's true in this case. I don't know of other things that are deemed "essential" to national security that can be put off until much later and perhaps indefinitely.

Are They Crazy?

by: ProfessorMike

Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 20:54:07 PM EST

Mr. Obama then convened a summit involving leaders of 47 nations that ended with a list of specific commitments from dozens of nations to eliminate or lock down nuclear materials to help keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

The treaty, known as New Start, would bar each side from deploying more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads or 700 launchers starting seven years after final ratification. It would establish a new inspection and monitoring regime to replace the longstanding program that lapsed in 2009 with the expiration of the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, or Start.

The new pact won approval from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 2010 with the support of three Republican members. The treaty is now in jeopardy because the Republicans have come out against holding a vote before they have control of Congress.   The Republicans want tens of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear weapons ability.  Even through the Obama Administration has committed to spend $80 billion for this project; it isn't enough for the Republicans.  With all of the budget problems we have the Republicans want to spend tens of billions of dollars to make sure that the United States destroy this planet several times over.

Are these people out of their minds?  Nuclear weapons are useless.  We have the power to destroy the world several times over but why would any sane leader use them.  Most of you out there are probably too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and the terror we experienced knowing that the world could end at any moment.  Nuclear weapons are only effective as a bluff and they are a very expensive bluff.  One that we can't afford to use.

The other problem is that we need to account for all the thousands of nuclear weapons out there and make sure that they are secure so that they can't be used by terrorists.  Nuclear weapons in the United States are secure but in other areas especially Russia, they are not secure.  Don't believe me.  Just think of all of the Russian made weapons that are already being sold around the world to insurgents and terrorists.  The new agreement would allow us to send inspectors into Russia and make sure that these weapons are kept secure.

President Obama wants to eliminate Nuclear weapons and we need to support him in this effort.  The Republicans who are blocking this treaty are putting all of our lives at risk.

How to Handle a Bully, by Senator Jeanne Shaheen

by: Dean Barker

Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 08:30:09 AM EDT

During Thursday's hearing on the treaty, the South Carolina senator strongly criticized the accord, saying that it would undermine U.S. national security.  DeMint tried to win support for an amendment that would permit the United States to develop a missile defense system.

...Senator DeMint insisted that the treaty would hurt U.S. national security unless his amendment passed, angering Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

"Are you suggesting that if we vote against your amendment that we, in some way, are not defending this country and do not believe that we should defend this country against our enemies, because if that is what you are suggesting, I personally resent that," said Jeanne Shaheen.

DeMint said he did not intend to offend anyone...

When a bully calls you weak or unpatriotic because you disagree with his position, you call him out on it right then and there. Bullies don't expect to be pushed back.  When they are, they are less likely to bully in the future.

Just one more example of the quiet, but tough as nails approach to governance that Jeanne Shaheen has been providing New Hampshire in the US Senate.

My admiration for her grows every day; I only regret that it took me some time to understand her style. Now I see what a terrific role model she is to other Dems for getting good things done in an institution that has become almost completely dysfunctional.