Subject: START treaty madness -THE Guardian
From: "Michael Andrews" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:33:41 -0500

NextPreviousBlog home
START treaty madness

Share
25

Comments (139)

Of all the lows they've hit these last two years, the Republicans have  
never gone this low. No, seriously. Blocking a nuclear arms treaty  
that would have the US and Russia working more closely together to  
control loose nukes and that is supported by people across the  
spectrum to deny Obama a political win is as low as it gets.

And the potential consequences are hideous. Matt Duss, from the Wonk  
Room:

Dismantling the arguments against the START treaty on the NewsHour  
last night, Richard Burt, the Reagan administration's chief U.S.  
negotiator for the original START treaty, noted that "there are only  
two governments in the world that wouldn't like to see this treaty  
ratified, the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea."

Burt also warned that, if the treaty fails, not only would "we miss  
the opportunity to improve relations with the Russians, who have  
supported us on Iran and U.N. sanctions and increasingly in  
Afghanistan," but the U.S. would also "lose all credibility on the  
problem of stopping nuclear proliferation."..

...But as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already —  
repeatedly — admitted, the GOP's main goal is making sure that  
President Obama is "a one term president." Severely handicapping the  
President's ability to credibly conduct American foreign policy —  
regardless of the actual consequences — is just one tactic in that  
larger effort.

Jon Kyl objects because the modernization issues aren't resolved to  
his satisfaction? Really? Please. He's been moving the goalposts on  
these issues all year, as the administration has thrown more money  
into modernization to address his concerns. NYT:

The administration has committed to spending $80 billion program to do  
that over the next 10 years, but Mr. Kyl has sought more money and  
greater assurance that the money would come through in future years.

In recent days, the administration dangled an additional $4 billion in  
hopes of winning his support, but Mr. Kyl held out. The administration  
has also promised to spend more than $100 billion over 10 years  
upgrading the triad of nuclear weapons: submarines, bombers and  
missiles.

Ask yourself if you honestly think that Kyl would still be saying no  
to a Republican administration that put a five-fold increase in  
spending on the table ($800 million to $4 billion).

James Baker was there with the president today. And Henry Kissinger.  
And Brent Scowcroft. Also current Senator Dick Lugar. Republicans all.  
Does it matter? Does anything matter? Defeat Obama. That's all that  
matters. It's bad enough when it's about benefits for jobless  
Americans. This is about nuclear nonproliferation. It's about Iran.

Obama and all Democrats better step up their game on this. In the old  
days of politics, for a Democratic president to have Kissinger at his  
side was enough. The Republicans would assent. That's not the case  
now, obviously.

This provides us a good real-life case study in political strategy.  
There will be some issues on which Obama will have to compromise with  
the GOP. But there will be some things on which he has to come out  
swinging. This is one of the latter. And not just Obama. Every  
Democrat who remotely matters on foreign policy. Can they coordinate  
like this? Can they demonize Kyl? Do they have the nerve?

Democrats, you face a truly demented opposition that knows only  
political warfare. Do something about it.