“Vichy” Republicans To Give U.S. A New START

Generals, Diplomats Warn of New START as Senate Moves Toward Ratification

The proposed New START agreement would handcuff the United States while giving the Russians free rein, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely tells Newsmax.TV. The Senate should reject the treaty because, “In reality, the Russians don’t have to do anything,” Vallely said in the exclusive interview…Vallely was among more than 30 former defense officials and diplomats who issued an open letter to the Senate Monday expressing their “professional judgment” that New START, “is not consistent with the national security interests of the United States,” and “should be rejected by the U.S. Senate,” which is considering it now.

Arms Treaty Appears to Have Votes to Pass Senate (NY Times)

The usual RINOs will again vote with Dems to scuttle American interests. These mugwumps must be removed from office in 2012. And, of course, in no place does the above NY Times story mention that 30 defense officials have voiced official opposition to the START treaty on grounds of national security:

[…] Four more Republican senators — Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — announced on Tuesday that they would vote yes, joining five others who had previously pledged their support. Another Republican indicated on Monday that he would probably support the treaty as well. Together they would give the measure the nine Republican votes needed to reach the two-thirds majority required for passage…In addition to Senators Alexander, Isakson, Corker and Murkowski, the Republicans who have pledged their support include Senators Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, and Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of MaineSenator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said on Monday that he would most likely vote yes as well. […]

Flawed, Mishandled Treaty | Senator Mitch McConnell Statement Against START Treaty

“The administration has taken the same cart-before-the-horse approach on the treaty before us. In this case, the President came to office will a long term plan to reduce the nation’s arsenal of nuclear weapons and their role in our national security policy. The plan envisioned a quick agreement to replace the START Treaty that was allowed to expire, with no bridging agreement for arms inspections, followed by efforts to strengthen international commitments to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and further reductions in nuclear arms over time. And he spoke of ultimately reducing nuclear weapons to `global zero’.

“In other words, the New START Treaty was just a first step, and it needed to be done quickly. Leave aside for a moment the fact that the New START Treaty does nothing to significantly reduce the Russian Federation’s stockpile of strategic arms, ignores the thousands of tactical weapons in the Russian arsenal, and contains an important concession linking missile defense to the strategic arms. We had to rush this treaty, according to the logic of the administration, because it had become an important component in the effort to `reset’ the bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation. It was brought up for debate prematurely because it was the first step in a pre-determined arms control agenda. The Senate’s constitutional role of advice and consent became an inconvenient impediment. […]

As always, if the Democrats and their Vichy Republican allies are for a thing, that thing by definition cannot be in the best interests of America.  The Lame Duck 111th Congress may be flying into history, but it’s leaving its droppings all over the rest of us.

Advertisements

About Bob Mack

Retired since 2003. Military Service: U.S. Army, 36th Artillery Group, Babenhausen, Germany 1966-67; 1st Signal Brigade, Republic of Vietnam, 1967-68 Attended University of Miami, 1969-73
This entry was posted in News, Opinion and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to “Vichy” Republicans To Give U.S. A New START

  1. More gutting of our defense system and operations!

    This administration — this Congress — is doing everything possible to bring down the United States as a world power.

    Can the next Congress curb this agenda? God, I hope so!

  2. Angel says:

    I cant think bout Congress Bob..grr! but hey…TIS THE SEASON!..SO LET’S try to be jolly eh! 🙂 (hugs)

  3. TexasFred says:

    Yeah Bob, lets NOT think about the fact that the nation is on the verge of total collapse, lets just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it’s ALL good…

    Looks to me like SOME folks need to reconsider their priorities…

  4. Liberty says:

    Hey Bob, here is what I posted on Sami to this topic.

    I was going to blog this myself on some bullet my nuclear scientist engineer father sent me but never got around to it until after the bastards passed it.

    Here they are, he sent to McConnell. (what a waste)

    • I believe this treaty should not be ratified.

    • President Obama’s desire to have all nuclear weapons destroyed is admirable, but misguided for multiple reasons.

    • First, Obama’s desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons has led him to cede too much to the Russians and has left the US nuclear weapons program in a degraded state. President Obama has stated he will provide $4 Billion to upgrade the weapons labs and weapons, but there is no guarantee that he will do so.

    • Second, as you know, the Treaty is flawed with regard to our planned Missile Defense Program, tactical nuclear weapons and especially the inspection of Russian nuclear weapon sites.

    • Third, both Iran and North Korea are working furiously towards developing nuclear weapons, both countries have leaders that are highly radical and untrustworthy, therefore they are likely to use the weapons.

    • Fourth, several other countries have nuclear weapons and they have not agreed to any reduction in their nuclear arsenals, as far as I am aware.

    • Therefore, ratification of the treaty as currently formulated would be a serious mistake for the US!

    PS, I have nuclear experience

    Sad, so so sad I know and disgusting.

    • Bob Mack says:

      I don’t know much about nukes, but–IMO–anything Obama & the Dems do is suspect and likely to weaken the country. Therefore I was against START from the start. Too bad the Senate Dems & its grazing RINOs didn’t listen to your dad. I suspect at some point they’ll wish they had.

      Dick Morris – START Gives Russia Tactical Edge:

      The Democratic Congress is trying to pull a fast one.
      They are using their lame duck majority — explicitly rejected by the voters of America — to compromise our national security by ratifying the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

      The treaty limits the U.S. missile defenses and the preamble suggests that we would not engage in any new military technologies to thwart nuclear weapons. It also says we cannot convert any of our rockets into interceptors and it locks in about a 10,000 unit tactical nuclear warhead edge for the Russians. It reduces strategic warheads — where there is now rough parity — but not tactical ones where Russia has a huge advantage.

      Why should we be rewarding Russia by relieving them of the expense of building new missiles and defense systems? […]

      Surrendering America – Our Worst Nightmare (Voting American)

  5. Ike Jakson says:

    Hi Bob

    I don’t as a rule comment on things that I don’t understand hence my response is more on the general nature of the topic.

    I have not read sufficiently about the Russian involvement and the main concern seems to be granting more power to Russia than what America will have out of the arrangements. I worries me that so many Republican Senators have indicated that they will vote with Obama; if I am wrong please put me right but I am, getting the impression that Scott Brown is making a habit of it. Bipartisanship is a good idea at times but disloyalty is not.

    On the other hand I fail to see how America can fight and win wars in Europe unless there can be some kind of mutual respect or agreement between America, Russia and China in these things. AFGHAN IS A GOOD EXAMPLE! You can’t win that war with conventional weaponry and Obama won’t use nuclear.

    Is it not the time to get out of there, I mean to get the hell out every trooper and equipment and all, and leave the area to the Russians and the Chinese to worry about?

    • Bob Mack says:

      Ike, I’ve never believed in this mania for “nation-building”, and especially not in a place mired in 12th century mores where the primary industries are the cultivation of opium poppies and brigandage. As far as START, it seems to me that it’s the usual RINOs voting with the Dems. I hope we don’t have to fight any more wars anywhere, but if we do, I never want to go into them again with one hand tied behind our back and less bullets in our guns than the other guy has in his.

  6. Ike Jakson says:

    Yeah Bob

    I agree with you; but America has “become too nice” about this “nation-building” rot. The rogue Nations [if you can call them Nations] know that America will keep to treaties even if the rogues don’t.

    War should be a last resort but if you go in you must go in with all you have and ready and able to kill the enemy. That should be left to the military and not to politicians.

    We talked about the nukes on Japan in a previous Post. What do you see happening in the Afghan mess? America won’t nuke the sorry lot and they are what you describe them as. Why not just get out? America will have to tighten up on immigration control and internal security whether politicians like it or not; why and for what reason stay on in Afghan? For that matter that entire darn region; let them fight it out or kill each other as is their want.

  7. Ike Jakson says:

    Bob

    I should really stop reading the Time Ragazine but I need the adrenalin from their rot to increase my blood pressure; in effect I suppose that I have become addicted to the Rag.

    Read this rot.

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2039321,00.html?xid=newsletter-daily

    Pakistan Sees An Alternative Endgame in Afghanistan
    By OMAR WARAICH / ISLAMABAD Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2010

    It was on my screen when I dispatched my previous comment but I only read it afterwards.

    Do tell me pray, what sense there is in remaining in that hellhole?

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s