-
Jittery in Jerusalem
October 22, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Uneducating the Islamic World
July 28, 2009 | 14 comments
-
Iran’s Revolutionary Moment?
June 22, 2009 | 32 comments
-
Interesting Times in Tehran
June 16, 2009 | 31 comments
-
Much Ado About Nothing
June 11, 2009 | 9 comments
Special Report
Still a Non-Starter
New START effectively stops America’s development of missile defenses.
In coming days, the U.S. Senate will begin its deliberations over New START, the major new arms control pact finalized by Moscow and Washington earlier this year. The outcome of that vote will have enormous ramifications for the safety and security of the United States in the years ahead. Here’s why.
New START is inherently unbalanced — and detrimental to American security. Under the treaty, both Moscow and Washington have committed to slashing their existing strategic arsenals by about one-third, to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads apiece, and to limiting the total number of ballistic missile launchers and nuclear-armed bombers available to each side. But the agreement is silent on a number of key issues that cumulatively serve to undermine the parity of the agreement.
One is Russia’s own, increasingly robust effort to modernize its nuclear weapons, which is not constrained qualitatively by the agreement in any way. Another is New START’s failure to address the issue of lower-yield, “tactical” nuclear weapons, of which Russia possesses far more than the United States. As a result, an arrangement that seems balanced on paper in practice will be anything but — leaving Russia unfettered in its nuclear development and America more vulnerable than before.
New START effectively stops America’s development of missile defenses. Last year, the Obama administration laid out a substantial plan to expand and augment the existing capabilities of the United States and its allies to defend against ballistic missile threats from abroad. Yet the text of New START undermines this commitment, explicitly limiting U.S. missile defense development under certain conditions. Worse yet, Russian officials have made clear that U.S. negotiators offered guarantees that the Obama administration will not make qualitative or quantitative improvements to its existing missile defense systems — and have threatened to walk away from New START if Washington does. This means that, as a practical matter, America’s ability to protect the U.S. homeland and its allies from ballistic missile attack has become a hostage of arms control negotiations with Russia.
New START isn’t transparent. Worried over the sidebar understandings that may have been agreed to by U.S. negotiators to secure Russian consent, the Senate has demanded that the White House provide the full negotiating record for the New START treaty. So far, the Obama administration has refused to do so, fanning fears that detrimental side deals were in fact struck by the White House and the Kremlin — and that the Senate will be forced to vote on the treaty without knowing the full extent of the commitments to which it is binding the country as a result.
New START isn’t urgent. It is abundantly clear why the White House has made speedy ratification of New START a top priority. Once the new session of Congress convenes in January, it will face even stiffer opposition to the accord than it does at the moment. White House officials therefore have attempted to woo Congressional conservatives with pledges of substantial funds for modernizing America’s own strategic arsenal in exchange for prompt passage of the treaty. At the same time, they have alluded to the fact that money for modernization might disappear if New START somehow doesn’t pass Congressional muster.
What is far less apparent is why Congressional conservatives should take the bait. For one thing, the modernization of our strategic arsenal, the single greatest guarantor of American national security and international primacy, is far too important to be tied to the fate of a bilateral treaty. For another, lawmakers need adequate time to properly weigh that agreement on its merits, rather than on the inducements that have been attached to it. When they do, they are bound to discover that — for all of the inducements being proffered by the Administration — the new arms pact with Russia is still a bad deal for America.
That, of course, is exactly what the White House is afraid of.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ilan Berman
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/13/still-a-non-starter
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 8:28AM
But why should Russia trust us? If we are able to protect ourselves through missile shields, that negates their defenses if we were to attack them.
Again, it is a matter of trust, and in international relations trust scarcely exists at all.
Old Soldier| 12.13.10 @ 10:24AM
I want the Russians to trust that they cannot win a war with us. I want them to fear us enough to think twice about brinkmanship. Maybe fear us enough to stop encouraging Iran, Syria, and Venezuela to develop nuclear weapons to be aimed at us.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:00AM
As an old soldier you know "international relations" is an oxymoron; the Russians are merely playing the same game every nation, aside from perhaps the Vatican, is. Russia is a worse place to live in than America, but Russians have their own dreary national interest to pursue. Nationalism is a very dirty business- to say the very least.
At any rate, Bush needlessly provoked the Russians by attempting to build an ABM site in Poland; all Bush's provocation did was give Russia an excuse to threaten Poland.
Rich Fisher| 12.13.10 @ 1:00PM
And why wouldn't Poland deserve and ABM system? Why is helping a country protect itself against a bully on the block considered provocative? So, by your logic, if I buy a gun, which I actually already have, then I am provoking burglars who might want to do me harm. You really are vacuous, Alan, have you had your meds balanced lately?
Negro X| 12.13.10 @ 5:29PM
Once again AB shows his total ignorance, so stupid he isn't even a useful idiot, just an idiot.
MikeD| 12.13.10 @ 10:36PM
NEGRO X: Your mistake is using real words and sentences, and then assuming that Mr. Brooks can understand and possibly reply. He has proven over and over that he is outclassed by the weakest mind in this group. He gives stupid a bad name. Like obama, nobody can be that stupid, therefore, he must be saying and doing things intentionally; which is worse...and more dangerous. Since you appear to be an intelligent person, please ignore Mr. Brooks. Attempting to argue with him is like wrestling with a pig (as I have written before.) You both get dirty; but the pig loves it. You're too smart for that.
Goatlocker| 12.13.10 @ 3:30PM
Amen, old soldier! Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that the Russians can be trusted and that we need to try and win them over by putting ourselves at a disadvantage is clearly not capable of thinking straight. I wish we had a strong leader lime Reagan, who would so frighten the Russians that they would be willing to try and be a little moreconciliatory.
Rich Fisher| 12.13.10 @ 12:57PM
Alan, and why the hell should we care if Russia trusts us? Russia has lied for 65 years since the end of WW II and what makes you think they would change now? The U S needs to do what is best for us and the hell with the Russians and the rest of the world.
Cuffie| 12.14.10 @ 10:54AM
R.F. Are you baiting or are you so socially and politically backward as to think any nation, including the United States, can ignore the rest of the world in this global political and economic era?
Intelligent Design| 12.13.10 @ 8:39AM
Obama's proposed nuclear treaty is reckless. It unilaterally weakens our national defense, our ability to protect our country from nuclear attacks, and our ability to defend allies such as South Korea and Eastern European countries. It does not promote peace, but encourages rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran to use nuclear weapons. Obama is illegally proceeding as if the treaty had been approved. Obama is attempting to diminish the United States, in keeping with his view that our entire history is unexceptional and mediocre.
MikeD| 12.13.10 @ 10:42PM
Once again obama and his band of academic morons have indicated either abject stupidity or intentional treason. Since we've been told over and over how brilliant the 'messiah' is, ergo; he's doing all these terrible things intentionally; which sure looks like treason.
The Republicans were given a clear message in November, and they had better not forget it. DO NOT TRUST OBAMA AND HIS THUGS. THEY LIE, THEY CHEAT. THEY STEAL. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES.
Since their objectives appear, because of their behavior and words, to be more aligned with Russia's than ours; they must be stopped and resisted with every ounce of strength at every turn. These people do NOT compromise. To them, compromise means capitulation. Never forget that for one second. INTRODUCE THE BRICKER AMENDMENT!
Louis Jenkins| 12.13.10 @ 8:42AM
Obama has negotiated this proposed treaty. That's number one to lend suspect to the treaty's actual substance. Secondly, it was negotiated during the democrat's super majority. They'd approve just about anything that the Pretender n Chief says is "good." Remember, Clinton is negotiating on an arms control/sales/private purchase deal with the UN that will stagger the second ammendment, yes, you heard correctly, stagger the second ammendment, and put Americans on the road to surfdom (as though we're not already there). Once these treaties are approved we can't, as a nation and in the constitution, turn our back on them. No treaties! Until those with more sane heads about them look closely.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 8:56AM
"and put Americans on the road to surfdom"
Surfdom? you are thinking of the Beach Boys.
Louis Jenkins| 12.13.10 @ 9:33AM
Okay, I misspelled surfdom for serfdom. Big deal.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 10:09AM
Take it easy, Lou; no one is standing you up against a wall.
WGMOW| 12.13.10 @ 6:27PM
Hey could you send some surfdom to us here in New England? 'S damn cold up here today.
Occam's Tool| 12.13.10 @ 11:08AM
Surfdom is where you want to go---especially the Vara-Tones and Guitar Noir. Serfdom is where Obama is leading us.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 12:11PM
McCain would have done the same.
MikeD| 12.13.10 @ 10:46PM
Another 'brilliant' assertion unsubstantiated by fact. "What ifs" are sucker arguments. Stick with reality. Besides, McCain wasn't much better than obama; other than being a real patriot; he turned into a 'muddle-headded' RINO. But predicting ANYTHING he'd have done is just speculation. Obama's evil moves are, unfortunately, real, not supposition. Disapproval of McCain might be the closest we ever get to agreeing on anything.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:28PM
"Disapproval of McCain might be the closest we ever get to agreeing on anything."
Well there you go.You complain that Obama is to you the very worst POTUS, but you nominated a total loser of a candidate in the summer of '08? you masochists, you political suicides who deserve all you get..
Margie| 12.14.10 @ 12:37PM
You know better, Brooks.
"We" did not nominate McCain. This has been pointed out numerous times by me and many, many others as to the reality of McCain's nomination.
You know it.
I know it.
And everyone else knows it by now.
Including God.
He was nominated because of Democrat Tom Foolery and mischief making, and open primaries in which Democrats, disgruntled voters and trouble makers could vote as Republicans. Until the open primary process is closed, they're going to nominate someone else that we wouldn't be caught dead voting for. Like Ron Paul or Romney, or Huckabee.
Decent conservative Republicans will vote for the nominee because we don't want the alternative, which is a Democrat Socialist.. like Obama.
There are other reasons as well as to why McCain was nominated. For one, Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, and I didn't even get into voter fraud, although I consider Democrats voting in our primaries a form of same. Heh, Democrats voting at all might be considered fraudulent. I'm kidding.. sort of. I mean, after all, don't you have to know WHY you're voting?
I think you like irking people for a living, hmm?
beebop| 12.13.10 @ 9:35AM
A session of congress is starting to resemble an NBA season ... nothing important happens until the end of it. Why don't we save ourselves considerably money, headaches and agida and only have congress meet for the last two weeks of the year where they can CRAM all of the damn business they should have been conducting in? This is a mess.
davelnaf| 12.13.10 @ 10:09AM
The new START is further proof—as if anyone needed any more—that the Obama administration is operating way outside the parameters of an American presidency. In many ways it is a rogue regime legally occupying the White House and the Federal bureaucracy. Its decision on START takes a page from the Clinton worldview that the US is too much of a hegemon and needs to be cut down to size.
And, speaking of Clinton: his nineties era giveaway to the Chicoms is all the proof you need to make this old charge stick. (If you think removing him from office was all about Monicagate, think again.) Clinton’s recent, smarmy little WH presser may have given Washington wonks a warm glow, but for most people it is another example of how this guy makes up the rules as he goes along.
In a lot of ways the Bamster’s presidency is just a hyper-active, less politically savvy, Clinton II with all the bells and whistles of European anti-Americanism tossed in to really throw a wrench into America’s gearbox. Dems voting for START in the Lame Duck shows just how much of a bunch of America haters these people are deep down. But if we’re ever going to be inoculated against the virus called the Democratic Party the body politic has got to endure some illness first. The good news is that after we recover the dems are history and so is Clyde’s wannabee and no-good moll.
Steve a| 12.13.10 @ 10:50AM
Who needs missiles? Just force the enemy to watch an Obama Healthcare speech & wait for the coma.
hardcard| 12.13.10 @ 11:50AM
how many missiles did russia just sell to venezuela? how much uranium is russia buyinh from the USA? how much nuclear tech and equipment is russia selling to iran ? STOP THE DESRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY NOW !!!!!!!!!
Perusha| 12.13.10 @ 12:08PM
Don’t you get it?
We have to pass the New START treaty so we can find out what’s in it.
Boomerbabe| 12.13.10 @ 10:30PM
Heeheehee
PattyMor| 12.13.10 @ 1:21PM
I get the feeling that enough Repuburats will sign on to pass this abominable treaty. If so, you will know the ones that ascribe to the "New World Order".
John II| 12.13.10 @ 3:19PM
So the keynotes of the new START appear to be two:
1. Political gaming in place of careful analysis and open debate.
2. Hostility to missile defense.
Yep--sounds like business as usual for the enlightened progressives.
Prescription: same as for the remarkably similar Obamacare. Kill it. And start all over, so to speak.
Robert Heiler| 12.13.10 @ 3:39PM
@Alan Brooks:
Gosh, Alan, you're right. And having them trust us is so much more important than DEFENDING OURSELVES. It will be such a comfort to have been trusted when we are all glowing from an attack that we could have prevented.
Bazza McKenzie| 12.13.10 @ 3:56PM
The greatest threat to the US in future comes not from Russia but from China, Islam and rogue states like NK, Iran, potentially Pakistan, etc. Obviously some of the latter are Islamic.
This treaty is downright stupid. It limits the ability of the US to defend itself and its allies against countries and actors that are not party to the treaty. Where are the restrictions on China, for instance? Where is the agreement to disarm the rogue states? Well of course China has no reason to agree to anything once the US has already constrained itself in a deal with Russia and neither China nor Russia will act against their client rogue states.
Anyone who endorses this treaty on behalf of the US is either too stupid to be trusted with public office or they are intentionally attempting to weaken the United States.
Intelligent Design| 12.13.10 @ 4:18PM
Amen.
Mike Cloutier| 12.13.10 @ 6:39PM
Tell me this is a real discussion. The fact that anyone could believe that peace is obtained without being strong truly does need to have their medications checked. What we need to do is follow through with building the best missle defense systems in the world and make them available to every peace loving democracy in the world. This, and only this, will bring the Communists and dictators to the table ready to negotiate something reasonable.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.10 @ 6:40PM
65 years.
For sixtyfive years our men and women building and manning our missile defenses have worked long hard hours guaranteeing the peace.
It really is that simple. Our overwhelming strength, quantitatively and qualitatively, has successfully deterred the crazies and the evil regimes around the world.
They have always known that if they "shoot"... then fine, they are dead.
The Islamics are the worst. They don't realize "Allah" is going to have a hard time coming up with enough (mutilated?) virgins if they shoot.
Some of our Paulturds here just want to retire from the world, but we cannot retire and maintain our freedom. It is as simple as that.
Paulturds and the other folks who wish us ill must be stopped, deterred, and if necessary, blown to kingdom-come.
Ronald Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union as they tried to keep up with us. I say we bankrupt Russia, China, and N-Korea instead of having to fight them.
The Islamics are a different kettle of fish. All of you who have gotten my new book, (and I appreciate the ones of you who have written to thank me for it), understand the problem and some solutions.
STOP START!
Tim*| 12.13.10 @ 8:20PM
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan
Margie| 12.13.10 @ 11:40PM
Agreed and well said, Ken.
"Some people may take a different view, but if I had to choose the single most important reason, on the United States' side, for the historic breakthroughs that were to occur during the next five years in the quest for peace and a better relationship with the Soviet Union, I would say it was the Strategic Defense Initiative, along with the overall modernization of our military forces."
~Ronald Reagan
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/sdi.html
Reading from this link, I came away with the impression that he was willing to negotiate, but not from a position of weakness, as this admin has been willing to do.
We shouldn't be allowing the Russians to strengthen themselves at the expense of our own military.
Always under the Democrats our military is degraded to the point where instead of inheriting a strong military, the Repub Presidents must spend in order to upgrade and strengthen it.
Tim*| 12.14.10 @ 1:50AM
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Zbigniew Mazurak | 12.17.10 @ 4:39AM
What Reagan said was true. And it should also be noted that he achieved these savings and reforms while significantly growing the total defense budget. Reagan OPPOSED reductions of total defense spending and closures of crucial weapons. He enacted the largest defense buildup since the 1960s. He created or expanded dozens of weapon programs and increased the arsenals of conventional and strategic weapons. He would've opposed all of the defense cuts Obama has implemented or plans to implement.
By contrast, the FY2010 defense budget was smaller than the FY1985 and FY1988 DOD budgets, in real terms. And the Congress has recently voted to reduce defense spending by $19 bn in real terms.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 12.17.10 @ 4:29AM
"Reading from this link, I came away with the impression that he was willing to negotiate, but not from a position of weakness, as this admin has been willing to do."
True, but he wasn't willing to negotiate about the SDI (i.e. missile defense)! He refused to even put the SDI on the table, and treated it as sacrosanct. Gorbachev threatened to refuse to sign an INF treaty if Reagan would not cancel the SDI, but eventually, in 1987, Gorbachev signed the INF treaty without any ban or limitation on missile defense as a concession.
Since then, Moscow has been constantly trying to undermine and limit America's missile defense. Until Obama was sworn in, however, they had accomplished practically nothing. Clinton only delayed the development of missile defense - which Bush II hastened.
But Obama is such a weakling that it was very easy for Putin and Medvedev to bully him. And so, in September 2009, Obama cancelled European missile defense, and in April 2010, he signed the New START treaty, which would limit America's missile defense so badly that it would practically end its development.
John DuBose| 12.13.10 @ 7:13PM
None of us commenting here are experts in strategic defense. But 1500 warheads ought to be plenty if we have the means to make sure most of them reach required targets. The world will likely remain a dangerous place, but the right set of bad guy deterents is way more complicated than nuclear bombs.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.13.10 @ 7:52PM
John DuBose
welcome.
""None of us commenting here are experts in strategic defense. But 1500 warheads ought to be plenty if we have the means to make sure most of them reach required targets. The world will likely remain a dangerous place, but the right set of bad guy deterents is way more complicated than nuclear bombs.""
Actually, I am an expert on nuclear war/defense, but you couldnot/cannot accept that at face value.
...of course there are many other facets of "bad guy deterrents" that are necessary, but most of all the "will and courage" to utilize them properly to keep the nukes in their beds.
John DuBose| 12.14.10 @ 3:54PM
Cant argue wuth that !
If the Pres and his people do not have a pair, we are all in the soup.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 12.17.10 @ 4:30AM
Several high-ranking officials of former GOP Administrations (mostly the Reagan Admin) have spoken out AGAINST the START treaty, as have experts of the Heritage Foundation. The officials are:
Hon. Edwin Meese, III, Former Counselor the President; Former Attorney General of the United States
• Amb. John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs
• Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union
• Hon. Paula DeSutter, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
• Judge William P. Clark, Former National Security Advisor to the President
• Hon. Kathleen Bailey, Former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Tassie| 12.13.10 @ 9:40PM
Excelent artical, but please explain why Condy Rice and other top republican politicians say its ok? It would be interesting for us mortals to know.
Alan Brooks| 12.13.10 @ 11:34PM
These hotheads are jingoists, not patriots; 45 years ago the old guys (65 or older) here were supporting LBJ's utter abortion of a war. Let them screw it up again so this time the culpability will be for all to see.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 12.17.10 @ 4:32AM
Because Condi Rice and George Shultz are RINOs. Here are REAL EXPERTS from previous GOP Admins who have spoken out against this disastrous treaty:
Hon. Edwin Meese, III, Former Counselor the President; Former Attorney General of the United States
• Amb. John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs
• Amb. Henry F. Cooper, Former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks with the Soviet Union
• Hon. Paula DeSutter, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation
• Judge William P. Clark, Former National Security Advisor to the President
• Hon. Kathleen Bailey, Former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
lulu guinness handbags | 12.14.10 @ 2:38AM
I have read your article.Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing. I will necessarily add it in the selected works and I will visit this site.
Sonny| 12.14.10 @ 5:24AM
Obama is an Anti-American, Socialist Marxist Ideological Zealot, who believes in Socialist Marxist principles, and is also an arab islamic.. muslim extremist sympathizer, who is putting the arabs first, and America, Israel, and the rest if the Free World, second, or third down on the list of priorities.. Obama believes that all of the problems of America, are America's Fault.. So how can he save America, when he doesn't even believe in America.. Obama is Anti-American, ans as such, could care less about America, and our Prosperity and National Security.. as this so called Start Treaty does, it limits, reduces, and ties the hands of America, to defend itself, in any manner America needs to... Obama is the Problem, just like with Jimmy Carter, and with the same old Anti-American, Malaise Rhetorical excuse and Attitude, but on steroids...
We, America, need an American hero, an American Leader and President, like President Ronald Reagan, not a Jimmy Carter 2.0 Obama... Get real... The American people are not as Stupid as you think, or want them to be...
Between now and 6 Nov. 2012, will be the American People's defining moment in US History, will we become the Anti-American Socialist Marxist State of despair and desperation, that Obama has set us on... or we will get rid of Obama, and install a real Pro-American Patriotic President, who will put America back on the right track, and restore America's to it's "Shining City on the Hill" and "Champion of Democracy and Freedom", that exemplified Ronald Reagan, so much.!!
But first, you have to believe in America, and be a strong Pro-American Patriotic Leader, NOT the opposite, like Obama is..
In my opinion, whether you like her or not, the only person that can do the job, that needs to be done, is Gov. Sarah Palin, as she is the only Ronald Reagan Constitutional Conservative American Patriot, that can instill and bring back, the American Spirit of exceptionalism, and Pride, and restore America's Greatness, that once was America, just like President Reagan once did..!!
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.14.10 @ 9:06AM
Sonny,
Welcome! Well stated.
D. Grant Chee| 12.14.10 @ 10:52AM
It is unfortunate that we live in a nuclearized and extremely dangerous world; but, we do. TRUST
of men, with agendas, such as Obama who's goal is zero nuclear weapons is foolhardy! New START
details MUST be thoroughly studied; not rammed through by Christmas as the Obama progressive administration insinuates. What is the rush? Has the Russian leadership forgotten the reality of MAD? Hardly.....and nor has America.
Delores Smith| 12.14.10 @ 11:10AM
AMERICANS,
Call yours reps and Senators. Tell them to wait until the New Congress to allow further debate on the New Start Treaty. The Preamble states that Russia can opt out of the treaty at any time; the New Start Treaty itself does not include this. Russia could take the position that the Preamble is a part of the Treaty. Hillary Clinton stated at a Committee Hearing that the Preamble is not a part of the Treaty. More importantly, Russia owns or is in the process of owning half of the uranium in the United States (Wyoming deal).
This is NOT the time for thie Treaty with the activities going on in North Korea and Iran.
Putin helped Iran establish its facilities.
Delores Smith
Delores109@cox.net
Randy131| 12.14.10 @ 12:58PM
Is holding the upgrading and modernization of our nuclear arsenal, being held hostage to the ratification of the START II Treaty, anything like what Obama and the Democrats have been complaining about with the tax cut extensions? Is Obama's promise of this modernization of the nuclear arsenal really believeable with his record of broken promises and lies in the last 3 years? Is the refusal to release the negotiating notes and points, to the authority whose responsibility it is to make sure this treaty is in the best interest of the USA, tell us anything about what might be in this treaty that has not been made public and the true intentions of Obama and his socialistic and communistic cohorts who surround him? Does the firing of a missile 35 miles off the coast of Los Angeles by a Chines nuclear submarine, whose nuclear capabilities we know nothing about nor is considered in this treaty, as well as North Korean and Iranian future nuclear arsenals, or the present Pakistani or Indian nuclear arsenals, make this treaty limiting are capabilities seem scary and dangerous? Maybe its just me, for I don't know which side these countries would take if we're at war with Russia, or any of them.
Marko| 12.14.10 @ 1:16PM
According to Lenin, "Treaties are like pie crusts - meant to be broken."
I have seen no convincing evidence that the leopard has changed its spots. Treaties made with the Soviets have always benefited them and not us, and they have not adhered to a single one of them. Why do we expect different results now?
jstplncrz| 12.14.10 @ 1:38PM
I'm not wasting my time with this guy...I'm writing my Congressmen and Senators!!!!
Robert Taylor| 12.14.10 @ 5:14PM
First we need to establish who we can trust and who we can't: Can trust--------------0
Can't trust---- Adminstration
Russia