Friday, November 19, 2010

Why START must be STOPPED...

....I'm going to give only one good reason, and it has nothing to do with the contents of the treaty itself.

Now, I hate to sound like a Democratic politician, but there is no need to read the start treaty to know what's in it.

What's in it cannot be good for America, because all of a sudden, there is nothing more important to our national security, to our economy, and to our character as a nation than...passing this treaty.

Just like the stimulus had to be rammed through immediately to save the nation from an unemployment rate that might, without it, exceed 8%.

Just like cap and trade had to passed immediately, for without it, the oceans would rise as Antarctica melted while the seas the end of this year, if I recollect. Not to mention all the international respect we would get.

Just like health care reform had to jammed through on a party-line vote, because without it, uninsured Americans would die in the streets like plague rates, and with it, the economy would recover instantly. Not to mention all the overseas respect we would get.

And now we have...START - from the
administration's lackeys:

Gary Samore, the top White House arms-control official, said Thursday he feared that putting off the treaty until next year would mean it “could be delayed indefinitely.”

As a result, the United States and Russia would not resume nuclear inspections that lapsed last year, which he said would fuel distrust and lead to “a greater likelihood you could get into an arms race.”

He also said a failure to ratify the treaty would undercut Russian support for the campaign to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program....

So if we don't ratify START right away, the results of all the Democratic policy failures will be the fault of the Republicans? Pretty thin gruel, guys...

AP threatens us, Soviet-style:

MOSCOW – Is the reset on the rocks?

Rumblings in Washington by the resurgent Republican Party against Senate ratification of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty raise doubts about a fragile U.S.-Russian rapprochement — the "reset" that has been a centerpiece of President Obama's diplomacy.

An unraveling of ties, which hit post-Cold War lows during the administration of George W. Bush, would erode global stability at a time of burgeoning security threats and harm international efforts to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

"The failure to ratify the treaty will deal a very painful blow to Obama's administration and the policy of 'reset,'" said Sergei Rogov, head of the Moscow-based U.S.A. and Canada Institute, a top think-tank advising the government on foreign policy.

If "the administration can't deliver what it promised, it would seriously undermine Obama's position in the international arena."

The fact that this article - written by one Vladimir Isachenkov - blames Bush for standing up to the Russia Bear, praises the Democrat's "reset" policy(which has allowed Russia to run amok in Eastern Europe), and warns that Obama needs this treaty, pretty much gives you three reasons why, in fact, we should oppose START.

We've seen this bum's rush before, and it's usually when Barack Obama is trying to serve us a shit sandwich by jamming it down our throat while assuring us it's Kobe beef. If the treaty is strong enough to stand on it's own, I am sure that will come out after thoughtful deliberations and study. But the fact that Obama and the media are resorting once again to "the fierce urgency of now" can only lead one to believe that they feel that careful scrutiny will prove the START treaty to be unpalatable to the American people.

The Senate must stand firm and say no. For now...

No comments: