Can New START Treaty Survive Partisan Divide in Congress?

[scandal 951]

Are there any limits at all to Republican partisanship? What about nuclear non-proliferation, is even that now subject to The Party of NO just saying NO?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/start2_11-17.html

Richard Burt was the chief U.S. negotiator for the START-1 treaty with the former Soviet Union in 1991. He's an international consultant and also chairman of Global Zero, a group seeking to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me step back in the remaining time we have, which is, if you look at the START-1 treaty, which you negotiated, Mr. Burt, approved, I think it was, 93-6, and the Moscow treaty that under the Bush 43 administration, something like, I don't know, 95-0, why has this become so politicized, so controversial and politicized?

RICHARD BURT: Well, again, I don't think it's because of problems with the treaty. Jim talks about ballistic missile defense.

The -- there are no constraints on this administration or any future administration's options for developing ballistic missile defense. The language in the treaty which is in the preamble is exactly the same as in the language in the treaty I negotiated and previous administrations negotiated.

Why is it getting so politicized? Well, first of all -- and, here, I can say this as a Republican -- this is the first time a Democratic administration has sought to get ratification for a strategic arms treaty. And I think that is a -- it makes -- creates a difficult dilemma for Republicans.

It's hard for Republicans to oppose a Republican administration's treaty, particularly in the current hyper-partisan and polarized atmosphere in Washington. I think it's much easier for Republicans to oppose this administration.

But, in thinking about the problem of ratification or non-ratification, we have to look at the consequences of what happens if this treaty goes down. We lose the verification system that has already lapsed under the treaty that I negotiated. We -- we miss the opportunity to improve relations with the Russians, who have supported us on Iran and U.N. sanctions and increasingly in Afghanistan. And we become -- we lose all credibility on the problem of stopping nuclear proliferation.

Margaret, 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.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are there any limits at all to Republican partisanship? What about nuclear non-proliferation, is even that now subject to The Party of NO just saying NO?

I see you're getting a hang of the strategy.

[DEDixon 39]

Are there any limits at all to Republican partisanship? What about nuclear non-proliferation, is even that now subject to The Party of NO just saying NO?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/start2_11-17.html

LOL, really no room to talk about repub's partisanship when the dems just elected the most partisan of all as their minority leader.

[scandal 951]

LOL, really no room to talk about repub's partisanship when the dems just elected the most partisan of all as their minority leader.

Yeah, LOL. That's truly hilarious.Your wit slays me.

Democrats elect a Democrat to be their leader. They should elect a Republican, I suppose, to please you? What the hell does that have to do with nuclear arms control?

The previous START treaty expired last year. The new one was negotiated and signed by the President last spring and is widely supported by respected Democrats and Republicans with serious credibility in arms negotiations: Republicans including Henry Kissinger and James Baker amongst others. Past such treaties were routinely ratified by large 90+ vote majorities in the Senate during the Nixon, Reagan and GHW Bush administrations - all Republican. So, what is different this time? Only that Republicans would rather embarrass the President than ensure the safety of the United States by ratifying this vital treaty as a routine course of business. With the expiration of START, we now have NO ability to inspect and verify Russian nuclear installations. The whole basis of our arms reductions was predicated on the "trust but verify" inspection regime. Can you just picture your indignation if Democrats had dared to hold up ratification?? But, oh sure, since there are political points to be scored, let's subject yet this vital issue like all the others to nothing more than bickering and partisanship.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, what is different this time? Only that Republicans would rather embarrass the President than ensure the safety of the United States by ratifying this vital treaty as a routine course of business.

Yep, that about sums it up. The GOP strategy is - and has been - do do everything they can to deny the Obama administration any accomplishment whatesover. If that happens to infringe upon national security, so be it. To this GOP, the safety and prosperity of the country is not as important as the failure of Obama. It's just that simple.

On a positive note, there are cracks in the GOP wall on this and a few other issues. Lugar has come out tearing the GOP a new one on their obstruction on this important national security issue.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), as yet the only Republican Senator to endorse the START treaty, is urging the Senate Democratic leadership to cut off negotiations and force a floor vote now on the new START treaty, or probably see it not get ratified for a very long time, Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin reports.

"The Republican leadership is preventing a debate on the treaty ... because they don't want to force their rank-and-file membership to take a position on the agreement," Rogin reports:

In a stunning rebuke to members of his own caucus, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Republican Richard Lugar (R-IN) said on Wednesday that the GOP is intentionally trying to put off a vote on the New START treaty with Russia, and avoiding a serious discussion about the treaty within the caucus.

"At the moment, the Republican caucus is tied up in a situation where people don't want to make choices," Lugar told reporters in the hallway of the Capitol building Wednesday. "No one wants to be counted. No one wants to talk about it." ...

But according to Lugar, the Republican leadership is preventing a debate on the treaty for the rest of the year because they don't want to force their rank-and-file members to take a position on the agreement. ...

"Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty. Maybe people would prefer not to do his or her duty right now," he said. "Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote."

Lugar argued that the intransigence within the Republican caucus is a result of the leadership's unwillingness to put current GOP senators in the crosshairs of the debate before the political terrain shifts in the Republicans' favor when the new Congress is sworn in. ...

Lugar wants the Democratic Senate leadership to cut off negotiations immediately and force a vote on New START now, to compel senators to get off the fence and to end the endless stalling coming from his own side of the aisle.

"I'm advising that the treaty should come on the floor so people will have to vote aye or nay [even if there's no deal]," he said. "I think when it finally comes down to it, we have sufficient number or senators who do have a sense of our national security. This is the time, this is the priority. Do it."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

LOL, really no room to talk about repub's partisanship when the dems just elected the most partisan of all as their minority leader.

Yeah, 'cause it's not like the GOP would ever elect partisans into Congressional leadership positions. Boehner and McConnell are and have been as middle of the road and bi-partisan figures as Washington as ever seen.