DescentBB

Obama-GOP showdown over nuclear pact with Russia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101118/ap_ ... ia_nuclear

article wrote:"It is a national security imperative," Obama declared from the White House. He surrounded himself in the Roosevelt Room with respected diplomats and military leaders of the modern era, including those from Republican administrations, in an attempt to portray statesmanship rising above politics.

Yet key Senate Republicans held their ground, underscoring Obama's difficulty in rescuing one of his foreign policy priorities. It was an early challenge to his political strength, just two weeks after the Republicans handily won the midterm elections.

Shame how the Republicans still can't stop being the party of "no."

So why are there some Republicans for the pack? In fact with the 59 Democrats and 8 Republicans that would be voting for the pack in the Senate now, they could of had their treaty. There is the 67 votes needed. Wait could there be some Democrats against it also?

What all does this treaty do anyway?

Avder wrote:What all does this treaty do anyway?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I

.

Some people think he's throwing away what little leverage we have getting some substantial help from Russia regarding Iran. If the Russians get what they want in the treaty without giving in on that point we have nothing else to coax them into helping us...

Also, Obama's claim that 'every month that goes by without a treaty is another month that we don't know what they are doing'...is a real stretch considering we never know what they are doing unless our spy equipment finds it or they want us to know about it!

There are some basic politics at play in his protestations. He's getting nothing good done so here's one of the few things he's trying to do that he can point outside his own party to blame the bogeyman. that is how he got elected and it's the only thing he can run on.
Expect to hear a lot of that kind of whining from him for the next two years because he sure as hell isn't going to fix anything (economy,healthcare, jobs, etc. etc.) which is the only other thing he could run on...

I like how \"Big Ears\" Obama referenced Pres. Reagan and Reagans \"Trust but Verify\" comment. Too bad Obama isn't anywhere near as good as the Pres. he echo'd.

woodchip wrote:I like how "Big Ears" Obama referenced Pres. Reagan and Reagans "Trust but Verify" comment. Too bad Obama isn't anywhere near as good as the Pres. he echo'd.

I dont think Reagan was all that great. He lucked out in that the Soviet Union was basically on its way to collapse when he got in, and he stayed long enough for it to really crumble. Economically he was terrible. His economic theory was nothing but voodoo, and he raised taxes, which would get him killed by conservatives if he was in office and trying that today.

woodchip wrote:I like how "Big Ears" Obama referenced Pres. Reagan and Reagans "Trust but Verify" comment. Too bad Obama isn't anywhere near as good as the Pres. he echo'd.

Obama may have big ears but he isn't a alzheimers patient being puppeted while shitting in his pants? I don't think I'd want to be anywhere near that either.

Avder wrote:
I dont think Reagan was all that great. He lucked out in that the Soviet Union was basically on its way to collapse when he got in, and he stayed long enough for it to really crumble. Economically he was terrible. His economic theory was nothing but voodoo, and he raised taxes, which would get him killed by conservatives if he was in office and trying that today.

No, Jimmy "Lusty" Carter's economic theory was terrible. Perhaps you weren't around back then where inflation was 18% and the elderly were eating pet food. Reagan's policies reversed that. Perhaps you should stop parroting the liberal's revisionist cant.

Mjolnir wrote:

woodchip wrote:I like how "Big Ears" Obama referenced Pres. Reagan and Reagans "Trust but Verify" comment. Too bad Obama isn't anywhere near as good as the Pres. he echo'd.

Obama may have big ears but he isn't a alzheimers patient being puppeted while ***** in his pants? I don't think I'd want to be anywhere near that either.

Are you seriously like 12 years old? Reagan developed Alzheimer well after he was out of office and for you to denigrate someone with the disease shows you to be nothing more than a callous kid who probably also enjoys pulling wings off of flies

woodchip wrote:

Mjolnir wrote:

woodchip wrote:I like how "Big Ears" Obama referenced Pres. Reagan and Reagans "Trust but Verify" comment. Too bad Obama isn't anywhere near as good as the Pres. he echo'd.

Obama may have big ears but he isn't a alzheimers patient being puppeted while ***** in his pants? I don't think I'd want to be anywhere near that either.

Are you seriously like 12 years old? Reagan developed Alzheimer well after he was out of office and for you to denigrate someone with the disease shows you to be nothing more than a callous kid who probably also enjoys pulling wings off of flies

No, he was in diapers while in the oval office. I have plenty of sympathy to express for Alzehimers patients but not for Ronald Reagan, whom doesn't deserve it IMO.

Mjolnir wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Mjolnir wrote:

woodchip wrote:I like how "Big Ears" Obama referenced Pres. Reagan and Reagans "Trust but Verify" comment. Too bad Obama isn't anywhere near as good as the Pres. he echo'd.

Obama may have big ears but he isn't a alzheimers patient being puppeted while ***** in his pants? I don't think I'd want to be anywhere near that either.

Are you seriously like 12 years old? Reagan developed Alzheimer well after he was out of office and for you to denigrate someone with the disease shows you to be nothing more than a callous kid who probably also enjoys pulling wings off of flies

No, he was in diapers while in the oval office. I have plenty of sympathy to express for Alzehimers patients but not for Ronald Reagan, whom doesn't deserve it IMO.

And your sources that this was the case?

Bit sick at the moment, searched for awhile but couldn't find much. I -know- I read it somewhere, but if I was mistaken then I shall recant the statement.

He doesn't need a source his word carry the weight of gold.

Heretic wrote:He doesn't need a source his word carry the weight of gold.

Or a big magic hammer.

Reagan was a puppet. An actor. His ideas on economics and deregulation are what really set the stage for our current recession. It doesn't matter if he had Alzheimer's at the time or not. If he did, puppet. If he didn't, moron.

Seems all the presidents have been puppets to the rich and powerful from around the world as of late.

Mjolnir wrote:Bit sick at the moment, searched for awhile but couldn't find much. I -know- I read it somewhere, but if I was mistaken then I shall recant the statement.

Since you are under the weather:

"Dr Larry Altman who's a Senior Medical columnist for the New York Times, once investigated whether this was the case.

Larry Altman: I was unable to find any evidence by any medical criteria that is known to the medical profession that Mr Regan had any symptoms or signs of Alzheimer’s when he was President. The signs and symptoms developed several years after he left office, but interviews with senior Cabinet officials in his last term, with his doctors who treated him on a regular basis, and other people who knew him, could turn up no evidence that there was any incidence or incidents that suggested that he had Alzheimer’s. And even his biographer didn’t find any evidence of it."

Transcripts here:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/hel ... 126442.htm

Back to the original topic...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101120/pl ... 1120113247

article wrote:"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."

That last sentence reeks of hyperbole, but still.

article wrote:Republicans have said they need to be sure that the US nuclear arsenal will be modernized and that the treaty will not hamper US missile defense efforts -- but some acknowledged privately that they did not want to hand Obama a major diplomatic victory before the elections.

emphasis mine

null0010 wrote:...

article wrote:Republicans have said they need to be sure that the US nuclear arsenal will be modernized and that the treaty will not hamper US missile defense efforts -- but some acknowledged privately that they did not want to hand Obama a major diplomatic victory before the elections.

emphasis mine

And that is evidence of the Party being more important to the representative than the citizens he represents.
If you are voting for either of the two bigs you are voting to have your best interests set aside for the interest of a frikkin political party over and over and over again.

Will Robinson wrote:If you are voting for either of the two bigs you are voting to have your best interests set aside for the interest of a frikkin political party over and over and over again.

This basically sums up American politics for the last hundred and change years or so.

Republicans: New START treaty will block US missile defense plans.

Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, Missile Defense Agency head: No, it actually reduces missile defense constraints

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... dly-treaty

article wrote:The only missile defense constraint of any kind in New START is the prohibition on converting long-range missile launchers for use by missile defense interceptors. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, has testified to Congress that there are no plans to convert launchers, and that if any new missile defense launchers were needed, they could be more quickly and less expensively acquired through the construction of new missile silos. None of the critics have explained how this provision limits U.S. missile defense options in the real world. Moreover, O’Reilly has explained that the treaty: “…actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program [that were present in the 1991 START agreement],” such as prohibiting the launch of missile defense target vehicles from airborne and waterborne platforms.

Avder wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If you are voting for either of the two bigs you are voting to have your best interests set aside for the interest of a frikkin political party over and over and over again.

This basically sums up American politics for the last hundred and change years or so.

I'd wittle that down to more like the last 60 maybe.