Washington Times Editorial: Obama's false START II (Start II was signed in Jan 93)

Obama has no desire to modernize our missile systems but is perfectly willing to let the Russians modernize theirs. What a bizarre world we are living in today in America currently headed by an anti-American President who would rather sit down with our enemies and allow them to dictate terms then to listen to our most trusted allies -- Great Britain and Israel. This new treaty leaves one wondering who were the negotiators and if they have every negotiated a treaty before. Do they actually want the Russians to be the most powerful Country in the World along with the North Koreans and Iranians?

Obama certainly doesn't know a thing about treaties when he doesn't even realize what he references as Start II has already been ratified and Start III submitted during Clinton was not approved which means we are up to Start IV? This treaty needs deep sixed as soon as it hits the Senate. Cutting our nuclear arsenal while not modernizing is one of the dumbest moves of this Administration among a lot of dumb moves. The sad part is that now we believe these 'dumb' moves are calculated to destroy America's superiority. This Administration appears to be headed by someone not raised as an American who would love to see the United States lose its place in the world as a 'Beacon of Freedom' as Obama tries to make us a more socialist country.

The American public is not buying what the Obama Administration is selling. This run-away freight train needs stopped in its tracks and sanity returned to our Government. How did this Country elect such a person to be President? Simple answer -- media covered for Obama every step of the way refusing to report the facts that came out time and time again. Sad part is they are still covering today for the most part.

Obama went from being Kenyan born when he ran for Senate to being born in Hawaii when he ran for President several years later. Did any member of the media bother to check the details? Never mind, Obama sealed all of his records and the media never said a word. Did any member of the media bother to ask to see his adoption papers? Was his reason for giving up his law license in 2008 because he lied on his Bar application since he didn't bother to tell them he used to go by another name? Did the members of the media wonder why he gave up his law license? Maybe that would have been taxing their brainpower too much for them to even think to ask such a question.

Now we have a President who is a socialist following the Alinsky model with obvious loyalty to Muslim countries negotiating a treaty with our enemy from the Cold War Russia who as far as many of us are concerned is still our enemy. The man probably should never have access to classified material with the people he associated with in Chicago, Hawaii, New York, and Cambridge to name a few places. You can bet an ordinary citizen working for DoD with his track record of associates would not even get a Confidential clearance. In fact, they wouldn't even be hired and yet this man is the President?

Republicans better stand strong on this treaty because they have the votes to stop the treaty in its tracks. This Start IV Treay is bad for the defense of America. All those years of building up our defense to keep us safe, Obama is systematically trying to tear it down piece by piece. We have a Secretary of Defense who cannot seem to find his voice to say NO to Obama. Obama has already lied to Republicans about what is in the Treaty -- Obama and his Administration said 'missile defense' was only in the preamble but that is not true -- it is in other sections as well. Does Obama and his people ever tell the whole truth?

"Republicans have made clear for months what needs to be done in order to move this process; there's been no ambiguity in our position on a strong missile defense, nuclear triad and the need to verify any treaty," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, Arizona Republicans, said they are concerned about additional references beyond the opening paragraphs of the treaty on missile defenses.

"While we were initially advised that the only reference to missile defense was in the preamble to the treaty, we now find that there are other references to missile defense, some of which could limit U.S. actions," they said in a statement.

Russian statements outside the treaty that Moscow will pull out if missile defenses threaten Russian forces, also "has the potential to constrain improvements to U.S. missile defenses, if objected to by the Russians," the senators said.

Additionally, the senators said the treaty will be difficult to ratify without fully funding a nuclear modernization program.

You know it is bad when Obama and Hillary are negotiating a Start treaty calling it Start II when that was approved in Jan 1993, Start III never was approved and we had a 2002 SORT Agreement. Under President Bush, the US destroyed 4,000 nuclear warheads while Obama's 'little' treaty only calls for 550. Yet, Obama is declaring this a real breakthrough and the best treaty in 20 years. He reminds you of a little kid with 'look at me, look at me' -- hard to fathom such as narcissistic person is President.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they established in the Constitution that treaties required 2/3 votes (67 votes) to be passed in the Senate and the House had no say. Bet they never envisioned a person like Obama as President. We thought he was going to be bad on defending our Country but we have to admit he is much worse then we thought. What communist person is behind him pulling the strings? Is it only Soros or more? Or is this all Obama himself now?

Guess we could ask the members of the mainstream media to spend a few minutes of their precious time looking into the Obama ties but them they might have to admit they screwed up by not vetting the man at all -- not even a little. His book, 'Dreams of my Father' is a fairy tale but they swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. Did they ever ask why he gave up his Illinois law license in 2008 or why is wife did in 1993? The mainstream media people cannot even report that he has the wrong Start Treaty number so guess hoping for some actually investigating is out of the question.

If our Senate approved this treaty, we would be surrendering our nuclear superiority that we have had for years that helped us win the Cold War. Mr. Kumbyya wants a world free of nuclear weapons which is one of most unrealistic things we have heard. The Iranians and North Koreans are developing nuclear weapons and Obama wants to do away with all of ours. Just who is Obama? Certainly not a lover of America and our freedoms.

EDITORIAL: Obama's false START
The O Force surrenders nuclear superiority to the Russians
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 9, 2010

The nuclear arms control agreement signed with Russia yesterday in Prague is a pale cousin to the treaties concluded at the height of the Cold War, when the stakes were higher and the risks greater.

The new treaty is almost universally referred to as "START II," which raises the question whether anyone in the Obama administration or the press knows about the START II treaty signed in January 1993, or the START III agreement negotiated but not signed under the Clinton administration, not to mention the 2002 SORT agreement. White House-fed claims that this represents the first progress in arms control in 20 years are ahistorical, to put it mildly.

The administration is also hyping the "historic" scope of the arms reductions, ignoring the more substantial efforts it inherited from the previous administration. Under President George W. Bush, the United States retired 4,000 nuclear warheads, while the new agreement commits the country to retiring only 550. Mr. Bush moved significantly closer to Mr. Obama's fantasy-land vision of a nuclear-free world than Mr. Obama will.

The treaty itself seems unremarkable, but the difficulty lies mostly with the administration that will be enforcing it. Mr. Obama is uncomfortable with nuclear issues, and his disinclination to face the hardest issue of national power may be the true reason he wishes nuclear weapons would just go away.

The Obama administration erred badly in announcing its new nuclear posture only days before the treaty signing, since this will frame the treaty-ratification debate. Senators will have legitimate concerns over how the treaty will be implemented within the new nuclear framework, especially since the strategic shift came after the treaty had been negotiated. The administration will have a hard time justifying the disconnects between treaty and strategy.

The treaty's warhead limit is a case in point. America will reduce its warhead stockpile, but the Obama administration has also unilaterally pledged not to modernize the U.S. nuclear force. This concession opens the possibility for Russia to achieve the kind of strategic technological surprise the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. The SALT I framework did not limit multiple warheads (MIRVs), in part because the United States felt it had an advantage in that technology. But the Soviet Union surprised America by swiftly developing superior MIRV capabilities in the 1970s, and within five years, the treaty had become a strategic liability enshrining Moscow's nuclear superiority.

Under the new treaty, the United States and Russia agree to limits in numbers of warheads, but only the United States has promised to freeze its technology. This is an open invitation to Russia to modernize its way to nuclear dominance.

The Obama administration is taking pains to point out that arms-control treaties regularly sail through the Senate with 90-plus votes, conveniently overlooking the fate of the Carter-era SALT II agreement, which languished in the Senate. There is also a lively debate going on in Russia whether this treaty is in Moscow's best interest, and the Duma may well hold up ratification pending resolution of the missile-defense issue, as it did with the original START II treaty. Ultimately, however, the politics of the treaty will be overshadowed by other issues, particularly the drive by emerging nuclear states such as North Korea and Iran to build atomic arsenals of their own.

The Obama administration's thus-far lackluster handling of global nuclear challenges will do more to determine the strategic setting of the coming decades than any scrap of paper. In the end, the fault is not in our START, but in ourselves.

Source: Washington Times