E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS*** UPDATE II *** In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden blasted Republican Sen. Jon Kyl for his comment that it was disrespectful to vote on the START treaty during the Christmas season. He said Kyl should let the Senate vote.
“Get out of the way. There's too much at stake for America's national security,” Biden said. “And don't tell me about Christmas. I understand Christmas. I have been a senator for a long time.”
Biden noted that there are still 10 days before Christmas. “I hope I don't get in the way of your Christmas shopping, but this is the nation's business,” he said. “This is the national security that's at stake. Act.”
*** UPDATE *** DeMint's threat to force a reading of the START treaty word-for-word has been called off, at least for today. In an agreement with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid opted not to start debate on the START treaty, even though he produced a successful vote to do so, NBC'S Ken Strickland reports. Debate on the treaty will now officially start tomorrow morning rather than this afternoon.
The Senate voted 66-32 to bring the treaty to the floor for consideration.
1:02 pm: The White House is calling a GOP senator’s stalling tactic to delay a vote on a strategic arms treaty with Russia “a new low” and a “political stunt” that jeopardizes national security.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blasted Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., for halting consideration of the START treaty by forcing a reading of the bill on the Senate floor, a procedural trick that would take up hours of time precious to Democrats who are eager to accomplish their remaining legislative goals before the end of the year.
In a press release, Gibbs called the tactic “exactly the kind of Washington game-playing that the American people are sick of.”
On the Senate floor this morning, Majority Leader Harry Reid called DeMint's action "a colossal waste of time."
Those who object to ratificiation of the START treaty argue that the Senate has not devoted enough time to debating the measure, including its proposals for modernizing America’s existing nuclear arsenal.
Earlier this month, 21 Republican senators signed a letter urging that the treaty not be addressed during the lame duck session.
"It would be unwise and improper to do this in a hurried fashion over the course of only a few days," they wrote.
The treaty is a top priority of the Obama administration and has been endorsed by every living Republican Secretary of State, leading backers to complain that Republicans are simply hoping to deny the White House a last victory before the start of the new Congress.
NBC's Ken Strickland contributed.
Leave a Comment:
So even after all the previous Republican secretary of states, Baker, Powell, even Condi Rice have encouraged passage of this treaty, and agreement that the START treaty would not be stalled if the Bush tax cuts are extended, there's DeMint still obstructing to prevent Obama from getting credit for an accomplishment.
Well, they say you can't negotiate with terrorists, or more appropriately, you should collect the goods/services with satisfaction before paying in full. The Dems should now say they will stall the tax cuts until DeMint stops playing politics. But they won't because the working poor and middle class, unemployed and elderly are being held hostage.
I wonder, with all the Republican abuses these last two years, from non-stop filibusters and blocks and holds, should the Dems do the same to Teapublicans in the next session?
kissinger is an old fart and thinks nixon is president,so much for his thoughts.............i like yelling
your not nice must be liberal
You're not very literate. You must be a Republican.
Obama's start project is "Hurry up and wait". When somebody wants something before the end of the year, look out as there must be a hidden zinger in the deal or money coming from under the table.
I hear a lot of people with strong opinions on the treaty. I haven't heard anyone discuss what they believe the pros and cons of the treaty are. Is there any real meat to this or is it mostly symbolic? It leaves both the US and Russia with more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. It doesn't prevent either country from producing more nuclear weapons.
Seriously, without a lot of stupid personal attacks, what do you think the NEW START treaty does tangibly to make the world safer?
It provides for mutual inspections again, something we haven't been able to do since 2009.
Why is America allowing Obama and his band of Czars, to pass ANYTHING without allowing ANYONE else to read it ? What happened to the left's promise of "transparancy"? I'm still trying to forget Pelosi's own words,....."we're going to have to pass the HealthCare Reform Bill to find out what's in it."
I can't even imagine how screwed-up this START treaty is. I can almost guarantee that it will put the United States at risk. Keep it up Obama,.....you little brain-washed, ignorant fool.
Hey Jarhead--
Have you read the damn treaty? Are you now a resident expert on all things START to know that it will put the country at risk? You know what puts the country at risk: idiots who cling to party line nonsense for no other reason than rabid partisanship while the potential risk to this country escalates. You parrot the misguided Fox crap without appreciating the context of Pelosi's words and expect us to trust anything you say? Pelosi said this at a time when all of you were foaming at the mouth about the bill that hadn't even been finalized yet with your death panel nonsense. Her words were not the ones I'd use but she was certainly NOT suggesting that the bill's contents can only be revealed once its passed. To the extent you have the capacity to think about anything other than a damn rifle think about that for a minute. Makes sense to you that she would keep a bill's contents secret and reveal them only upon passage?
You more than anybody ought to know the danger that still exists in a nuclear Russia badly in need of oversight. Or maybe you're just so far gone on the right that rational thought is no longer possible. Whatever it is, unless you know anything, anything about this treaty shut your pie hole Marine and just stand there protecting the smart people!
Mad in CT: Well just your location would indicate you are a bleeding-heart liberal. You can see how well Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Russia and China have adhered to UN sanctions and other treaties we have signed. Remember Star-Wars treaty? Did we ourselves just land an unmanned drone after being in orbit for 8 months. These darn treaties with communist/dictatorial countries aren't worth the ink in the pen. They truly are dog and pony shows.
Mad in CT, your vague interpretation of Pelosi's words say more about what you think than what you know. The Dems met behind closed doors in finalizing their bill. Please enlighten us as to exactly what your interpretation of her statement is. The way in which you berate people that disagree with you suggest to me that you attended the preliminary instuctional meetings on how Obama's gang planned to ram their agendas down the people's throats once they arrived in DC. I mean, that has been the Dem's procedure from day one. Demonize those that don't agree.
Marine- The treaty was signed in April. Plenty of time to have read it, don't you think?
I love the "behind closed doors" statements that Faux (Conservative entertainment) News brings out whenever it is against anything,,,,,,,,,,How many times did we watch HCR debates that were open to the public on the REAL news channels while Republicans claimed they were held "behind closed doors"
This bill was available for ALL Republican politicians to read for the past 9 months
The START treaty only deals with "strategic weapons." Strategic weapons include ICBMs (Interontinental Ballistic Missles), SLBMs (Submarine Launced Ballistic Missiles), and Heavy Bombers identified as ones that are outfitted and designated to carry nuclear weapons.
It does not deal with "Tactical" nuclear weapons such as, IRBMs (Intermediate Range), MRBMs(Medium Range), SRBMs (Short Range), or aircraft not designated as "Heavy Bombers" but can still carry nuclear ordnance. It doesn't deal with nuclear artillery rounds.
I thought it might help to start out with a basic understanding of what the Treaty actually deals with.
Here is the first part of ARTICLE 2 of the Treaty:
1. Each Party shall reduce and limit its ICBMs and ICBM
launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers, ICBM
warheads, SLBM warheads, and heavy bomber nuclear armaments,
so that seven years after entry into force of this Treaty and
thereafter, the aggregate numbers, as counted in accordance
with Article I11 of this Treaty, do not exceed:
(a) 700, for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed
heavy bombers;
(b) 1550, for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on
deployed SLBMs, and nuclear warheads counted for deployed
heavy bombers;
(c) 800, for deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers,
deployed and non-deployed SLBM launchers, and deployed and
non-deployed heavy bombers.
2.
Each Party shall have the right to determine for itself
the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms
Good to finally see somebody post something regarding exactly what this treaty is about. I'll assume jcg's info is correct. More importantly, how do we know that the terms of this treaty will be followed and how will that be verified? Russia is still sly and unpredictable.
we can check each others arsenal and see that both countries are following the start treaty. Keep iran and North Korea in check. vote yes a no brainer
And as far as ".....Republicans simply hoping to deny the White House a last victory before the start of the new Congress,"....."el presidente" hasn't done anything right since he took office.
Its all a "dog and pony" show. Ever since the days after WWII, both countries have been targeting each other,.....and it will never change. But one country will always get the benefit over another whenever these treaties are signed. Which country has upper hand?
I thought this bill had been in committee for a year. So no one disected it then? If these guys have not done their job up until now, I suggest that we get at deficit reduction by at least a 50% reduction in their salaries.
You ever notice that with this president, everything has to be done RIGHT NOW? Screw whats in the bill. Just sign it and we will figure out whats in it later
Finally, we have bi-partisanship in Congress! Yep, both sides are complicit and spending like their are no consequences and like the “tax payers are so stupid they don’t mind a bit!” Oh but wait, why don’t I hear the cable news talking heads complaining about Bush or the Tea Party on this one?
Mitch McConnell is an effing bitch and the Dems and Inde's will crush the GOP come 2012. Sarah Palin = Bobby Kennedy.
I believe a more accurate appraisal of what will happen in 2012 depends on what our representatives do between now and then. It matters not to those like myself, who voted for Obama and then dedicated themselves to throwing to the gutter the mindless Democrats who followed the liberal's attempt to transform this nation into a model of the European socialist countries that are dropping like flies due to their misguided policies. Democrats and Republicans had better do the work of the citizens of this country because there are those like myself who are careful now to cast votes based on policy and not political parties.
Let's take stock:
Those supporting New START...............................Those opposing New START
George H.W. Bush (former President).....................Jon Kyl (Sen.)
Bob Gates (SecDef).................................................Sarah Palin (former gov.)
George Schultz (former SecDef)..............................Jim DeMint (Sen.)
Colin Powell (former SecState)................................John Thune (Sen.)
Henry Kissinger (former SecState, NSC)
Condeleeza Rice (former SecState, NSC)
James Baker (former SecState)
Brent Scowcroft (former NSC head)
Note: this list includes only Republicans. The list does not include military leaders. That list would include Adm. Mike Mullen (Chair, JSC), Gen. Kevin Chilton (Commander US Strategic Command), Lt. Gen Patrick O’Reilly (Missile Defense Agency Directory), Gen. James Cartwright (Vice Chair, JSC), among legions of others. Nor does it include the many former Democratic SecStates, SecDefs, etc. who support this treaty.
One might believe that the intellectual level of the Republican leaders has declined in the current generation.
Why are so many of you Republicans defending this? This is exactly why I no longer consider myself a Republican. It’s not about reading something before they sign it. It’s not about whether or not it’s good for our country. What’s wrong with waiting a little longer? I say what’s wrong with signing it now. This has been read and re-read for 8 months. It’s been vetted, and it has more than enough to support from BOTH sides of the aisle to pass. It’s going to pass! The ONLY reason to delay signing this is because the Republicans would rather play party politics than move our country forward.
I really don't know enough about this START treaty and figure it should possibly be passed, but I don't see why it can't be openly debated prior to voting on it. Everything with Obama seems to be an emergency and must be passed immediately no matter what. Remember the stimulus bill was an emergency and had to be passed or unemployment would rise, then the HCR bill had to pass immediately or the country would see people dieing in the streets. The recently passed tax bill had to be passed at the last minute to keep taxes from going up and to keep unemployment checks coming, even though congress and the president knew years ago that the law was expiring. Why is everything put off until the last minute, and then declared an "emergency?"
The treaty was signed in April. How many more months does it need to languish before they vote on it? Don't you think they should have read it by now?
I too am trying to educate myself more fully on START, I try to read the comments to see if people are explaining it better, but all I see is people calling eachother stupid morons and finger pointing, BLAH.
I'm sure both sides have read it considering it's been around for years and years, and maybe the reason they're wanting to debate it is because there's some wording it it that someone else doesn't like? This is an actual question and I'd appreciate if no one called me stupid or picked out whatever grammatically incorrect language I may have used.
This treaty was signed by Obama in April 2010. If it was a critical piece of diplomacy it would have been passed by a Democratic congress before now. Something is wrong with this agreement. The both houses of congress know it but haven't told the public.
These are the same Republican politicians who convinced 100 million under-educated Republican voters who make on average around $20k a year that those making $MILLIONS$ during a recession NEED a taxbreak, What else could we expect?
I'm old enough to remember those stupid drills in grade school where we had to go into the halls, sit Indian-style with our hands over our necks, our heads tucked down, facing in front of our lockers. Not only was this extremely uncomfortable, given we had to sit for 30 minutes or so, but it was an utter waste of time - as we learned later in high school science and history classes.
Those days are over. They are over because we have treaties limiting nukes; we have diplomacy; the Wall came down; some people in power have decided they don't want to go out that way. Getting nuke nations on board with this treaty is a very good start in pressuring the rogues. It has to be done.
Here's the absurdity of Kyl and his ilk. They push for "family values", "pro-life" (this one is too easy), military defense, extort tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations using the 2 million unemployed whose benefits just ran out, deny global warming, still want deregulation of Wall Street - after the worst economic debacle in 80 frickin' years, and then they stall on a nuclear arms treaty. Their rhetoric, their ideology is oxymoronic. Their tactics are reprehensible. And some people out there are actually finding ways to EXCUSE this cr@p.
Republicans: Do you want a healthy, productive country or don't you? Do you want educated, well-informed, skilled people or don't you? Do you want equal opportunity and access to all those things for EVERYONE or don't you? Do you want a thriving economy for EVERYONE or just your little rich buddies? Do you want to breathe fresh air in 20 years, or, since many of you won't even be around then, do you want your KIDS to be able to breathe fresh air and drink fresh water in 20 years?
Get your over-sized, bloated heads out of where they are currently tucked and start thinking about this country, its future, and ALL the childrens' futures. Get over yourselves and get with the program.
Republicons had this bright idea and they want their own president to fail, you know just like Bin Laden and the Taliban and terrorists. They are working really hard to make sure he doesn't win the presidentcy even if it puts you me and our families throughout America and the world at risk for political gain. In other words they are complete idiots and we are in their hands
Hammer away.
The GOP will kick your ass on this.
We don't have the time and money to mess with this.
How utterly stupid can the Democratic leaders get when it comes to holding Republican lawmakers to promises and assurances?
How many times does it take for Lucy to yank the football out as Charlie Brown attempts to kick it before Charlie Brown decides Lucy is not going to act in any positive fashion that enables or permits him to kick that football regardless of the assurances and promises by Lucy.
Under the ABSOLUTE LIE that Republicans would support the new START Treaty IF President Obama and the Democratic lawmakers passed the extension of the utterly corrupt Bush jr. tax cuts for America's ultra-rich. OK, passed now the Republican's real agenda comes forth, namely to torpedo the START Treaty!
Is there any Democratic Lawmakers with the lights on these days? HELLO? Knock, Knock.
Republican 2012 front running candidate Mitt Romney before numerous fund raising events before the deep pocketed US Military defense contractors promised them that as America's next president he would order a great many NEW nuclear weapons AND a great many new different kinds of nuclear weapons to be added to America's nuclear operational arsenal. OK, the Republican 2012 front running Presidential candidate is telling his supporters a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT direction leading to a nuclear arms race would occur under President Mitt Romney who wants MORE Nuclear Weapons and MORE NEW KINDS of Nuclear Weapons.
The Republican lawmakers are running an agenda which is entirely different than that of passing the Start Treaty. Deal with it or act like you didn't have a clue when this treaty fails to pass.
We don't sign this treaty Russia will build more weapons systems and will be able to sell them to smaller countries...as we speak we can blow up the world 650 times over..but I am sure that isn't enough for republicans like Cornyn who is praying right now that russia doesn't start raining nukes on us..I feel so safe with the republicans and soon russia will be selling their nukes to Iran Somolia Yemen you get the picture. repubs can actually effect the lives of people in other countries instead of vogueing for a photo shoot and getting your name out on the tube ..SIGN THE TREATY
We need a good teacher at the whitehouse and teach the republicans how to read. They seem to have trouble reading
I wish for Xmas that the Republican party would go extinct & banished from government, replaced by voters choice & not by lobbyist. The greatest Xmas present to America. Exile all including Bush & Cheney to Devils Island.
Democratic congress - Republican congress...............who cares which group is in the majority when this ultimately passes? Bottom line is that Obama will still be President in January, and it will still be HIS accomplishment. what I don't like is this congress' routine modus operandi of saying that "This (whatever it is) must pass right NOW or the country is in major danger of (fill in the blank). If these things were SOOOO VERRRY important, why were they not addressed on day 2 of this administration? But TODAY they MUST be passed NOW????? Yeah, right! More of the same BS coming out of DC.
What message does this send to Russia about the importance of the treaty if a) the year ends without this being ratified, and b) a new Congress is convened before there's ratification? And, the treaty couldn't be addressed on "day 2 of the administration" because it wasn't negotiated until April 2010. It has been wending its way through Congress ever since. Honestly, I don't like the modus operandi of holding important legislation hostage to tax cuts or refusing to vote for legislation that was YOUR idea originally because of voting along party lines.
If it was that important, why didn't it come to a vote, say in June 2010? Why wait until the end of the Session? Some of these things can't be viewed as having earth-shattering import when they were relegated to the bottom of the priority list, can they?