Posts Tagged ‘Start II’

Comrade Obama & Co.

November 22, 2010

Recognizing the narrowing window of opportunity wrought by midterm election fallout, Team Hope-&-Change is putting its best full-court press on the Senate to try to ram yet another we-need-to-pass-this-so-we-can-find-out-what’s-in-it measure down America’s throat. Here, the measure is a “new” Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the U.S. and Russia.

The original START expired last December, preventing teams from both nations from inspecting each other’s nuclear weapon sites. Since the Senate must ratify any treaty, the administration is pushing for ratification before freshman Republicans are seated in January. Afterwards, the Democrat lead in the Senate will shrink from 58 to 53, all but guaranteeing the treaty’s demise.

Another big problem Democrats face is that unlike the health care legislation, we actually know what’s in the proposed treaty — and it’s not good. As a related aside, we offer a brief primer on sizing up treaties — or any other momentous measures — advocated by the current administration, solely based on Team Obama’s track record over the past two years. The entering argument is that if Comrade Obama & Co. are “for” something, that “something” will undoubtedly be bad for the nation and its security. This “new” treaty is certainly no exception.

In addition to being fundamentally flawed because of woefully inadequate verification measures, the new START also critically hobbles missile defense options that the U.S. has spent billions on and leads the world in fielding.

Accordingly, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) may be America’s last best hope to keep U.S. nuclear capability from being sacrificed on the altar of make-nice-with-your-enemy treaties. Democrats need nine defections from Republican ranks to reach the 67 votes needed for ratification, and as Senate Minority Whip, Kyl has the ability to ensure that doesn’t happen. Thus far, Kyl has been withholding support for START in lieu of administration guarantees to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons — guarantees, of course, the administration is in no position to make good on, since funding for the same falls squarely in Congress’ lap. Then again, given his RINO-like sellout on immigration reform a few years back, we’re less than cautiously optimistic that Sen. Kyl will hold the line on the future of America’s nuclear security.

Even so, given that treaties are binding as “the supreme law of the land” (U.S. Constitution, Article VI), we strongly urge all senators to deliberate carefully on the long-term consequences to America’s defense — especially its missile defense — before rushing to any vote. At the very least, the treaty should solidly affirm President Reagan’s timeless maxim: “Trust but verify.”


Obama, wearing his utopian epic fail…

January 9, 2010

As Barack Obama continues to pretend that the U.S. is not at war with Jihadistan, our Dear Leader also continues to pretend that sacrificing our nuclear arsenal will make our adversaries and enemies play nice with us. As we detailed previously, Obama appears ready to slash U.S. nuclear capability with minimal, if any, Russian concessions, as a follow-up to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991.

It now seems that Obama is willing to let whatever remains of the U.S. nuclear stockpile rot in place after the new treaty, in spite of a little known 2009 report from a formal U.S. bipartisan commission that examined the safety and capabilities of the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal. The report noted that the U.S. needs new nuclear warheads and research facilities in order to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately, Obama, wearing his utopian, antinuclear and rose-colored glasses, continues to oppose a new warhead program despite widespread support at the Pentagon, including the backing of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Fortunately, the U.S. Senate, which would have to consent to any new arms treaty with at least 67 votes, has warned Obama that any new START treaty is NO GO unless the administration also agrees to a warhead modernization program. In a recent letter to the White House, 40 Republican Senators and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman reminded the president that, under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, any new START treaty legally requires the commander in chief to present a budget for modernizing U.S. nuclear forces. It’s nice to see that the Senate takes seriously its obligation to advise and consent on treaties, and that it’s also willing to warn Obama that, unless the administration ensures that any remaining nuclear weapons will work if needed, START II is DOA.


%d bloggers like this: