Mitch McConnell Announces He Will Oppose New START Treaty

[sasha031]

Source: Huffington Post

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.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/19/mitch-mcconnell-oppose-new-start-treaty_n_798754.html

---

I feel nauseous all of a sudden,

[dennis4868]

1. The repubs know how important the issue....

of arms containment is to Obama from his days in the senate and they will not allow Obama to get a victory here even if it means putting pur national security at risk....I HATE THESE PEOPLE....THEY SHOULD GO FUCK THEMSELVES AND LEAVE US AMERICANS ALONE!

[sasha031]

2. they won't be happy till there is another terrorist attack

then they can blame the President and the Democrats...

[AlinPA]

13. There was a time when I may have disagreed with that statement, but not now; they would be

happy if we were to have a terrorist attack here. Further, I can believe that they are hoping for our troops to fail in Afghaistan.

[sasha031]

17. Maybe my statement was over reacting

when read articles, sometimes I just get so angry and react.

repubs fight against anything that is good and fair. "how much is enough" as Bernie has said

[AlinPA]

18. No. The right's hatred for Obama is very serious. Nothing matters to them anymore, except hurting

him in any way that they can.

[sasha031]

19. they are truly insane and lethal

[bongbong]

3. The reasoning behind Turtleneck's stance

"We republicans love war and hate peace, but especially at Christmas time!"

[wisteria]

4. He is playing games.

His fellow Republican Sen. Luger was on "This Week" and this is what he has to say about START,

AMANDIE: What happens if it is not ratified? What does this mean for the security of the United States? LUGER: Well, it's a very bad picture. The importance of this is that the Russians are important to us. We're hearing on the floor that the Russians are one thing, but it's almost as if this is a generation ago. Now it's North Korea or Iran. We're saying, as a matter of fact, it's very important to have boots on the ground in Russia inspecting what is occurring, verifying what is occurring, as we have had, so we don't make vast mistakes in terms of rebuilding all of our armed forces or taking other actions. Furthermore, it's very important that we have negotiations with the Russians, as we will proceed then, to take a look at the tactical nuclear weapons, other ways the Russians can work with us against nuclear in Iran or North Korea.

To throw away all of those opportunities simply because some feel the Russians are no longer relevant or -- or we should just simply build whatever we want to quite apart from the Russians seems to me is an illogical stance

And, Senator Kerry has said, that McCain's concerns are unfounded,

AMANDIE: The words in the preamble, are they legally binding? KERRY: No, there is no legal binding statement whatsoever. There is a sort of statement that for political purposes was necessary to -- to achieve what we achieved. The important thing is, the Russians wanted to have a binding statement precluding us from having missile defense. There is nothing in there that restricts our missile defense system. The president made that crystal clear in a letter he sent to the leadership. I read it on the floor yesterday. And he has said he disagrees with whatever statement the Russians have made publicly. We are proceeding forward on the understanding within the treaty. Within the four corners of the treaty, there is zero restriction on U.S. missile defense.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-sen-john-kerry-sen-richard-lugar/story?id=12433728

McConnell, McCain, and Kyle are playing childish games and placing our country at risk, over BS. And, even when they are offered proof that their concerns are unfounded, they persist in pursuing this-why? I think it has a lot to do with politics and not giving our President a win on national defense. And, I really hope the media does not allow these a**holes to have the upper hand on this.

[northoftheborder]

5. ditto above opinions +1000

[SOS]

6. If a nuclear device from the former Soviet Union

is detonated in an American city, we now know who to blame.

:nuke:
Thanks Mitch!

[Old and In the Way]

7. There should be a political price to be paid for this follishness.

The supporters of Republicans ought to be on the phones melting down the switchboards in their Senator's office. But the rubes have been voting against their best interests so long, why stop now? They've happily voted against their economic interests, I suspect that their physical wellbeing and that of their children is secondary to their visceral hatred of Obama and Democrats. This really shows the difference between voting blocks. Had the the exact same START treaty been sent to the Senate by a Republican President, it would have overwhelming bipartisan support because we understand that is in our country's best interests to get this done. Republicans don't have that same perspective. It's more important to thwart a treaty that will escalate the arms race than give a Democratic President bi-partisan support on an issue that serves the whole world's interests.

[valerief]

8. These Republican senators must be making a bundle off the sale of Russian nuclear

material.

[savalez]

9. delete

[laylah]

10. What DOESN'T that bottom-feeder

oppose, if it is good for our country?! :puke:

Jenn

[neverforget]

11. I hate that no-chin fuck.

[Thor_MN]

12. Chinless Bitch waaaahhnts to keep throwing billions at anti-missle money pits

Anything that cuts military spending is abhorrent to the repubs, but allowing Obama a win on anything is not allowed, even if it hurts the country.

[Kolesar]

15. Yes, I feel that way...eom

[Major Hogwash]

14. The clock is ticking on Mitch's time in office.

And he knows it. He's history.

[TomCADem]

16. Expecting GOP Psy-Ops To Join The Attack Soon, And Attack From The Left

There must be a way to spin a treaty against nuclear proliferation as being corporatist and a secret plan to advance Republican/Right Wing goals event though most Republican Senators oppose it.

I think the attack could be, "The treaty does not ban nuclear weapons outright, thus we should oppose the treaty as a half measure."

[mbperrin]

20. Gosh, what a shock! I just knew that once we caved in and gave the

billionaires their tax cut, that the START would be in the bag, you know, tit for tat?



Right? All this bipartisan shit? Right?





Well.

[ProSense]

21. Not surprising, he voted against closure and it still passed. n/t

[Lord Magus]

22. It's too bad there's not an intelligence requirement to serve in Congress.

If there were, we could boot McConnell, McCain and the rest for (among other things) being so stupid they think you can attach amendments to a treaty.

[HughBeaumont]

23. Mitch McConnell Helms.

= =

Minus the racism and flat out threatening the president's life, of course. "Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, that's just Jesse bein' Jesse" If it were any one of us, we would be locked up RIGHT quick.

[Bandit]

24. How would we use nukes in missile defense?

I can understand using nukes in an offensive mission, but how would we use nukes in stopping incoming missiles? His rationale makes no sense at all to me...

[Nihil]

25. It's not intended to make sense - just a sound-bite. (n/t)

[Hawkowl]

26. This was a common defense

The answer is an anti nuclear ballistic missile missile. Did you ever play the classic "Missile Defense" video game in the 80's? It is much easier to take out a ballistic missile outside the atmosphere with another nuclear missile than trying to knock it down with a conventional weapon.

These types of missiles were outlawed by the ABM treaty in 1972. This helped curb the runaway nuclear arms race between the USSR and USA. That is why we ended up with 15,000 nuclear weapons. We had to have enough to make sure some survived the countermeasures. Of course Shrub unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002, so now anything goes.

[and-justice-for-all]

27. A puke saying NO to somthing positive????

I am shocked... :eyes: Republicans are the new fascist.

[Tx4obama]

28. Here's a link to a list of the 9 republicans that are BACKING the START Treaty

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x50516