Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
In a mendacious editorial opinion today, the editors of the Arizona Republic kissed Sen. Jon Kyl's ass instead of calling for his head for putting partisan party politics ahead of the national security of the United States. Senate, Obama can achieve arms deal:
A new nuclear-arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia that enhances the security of the nation is a worthy goal, and any politicians who obstruct that mission out of political opportunism should be held answerable.
Good opening premise, but the editors fail to follow through.
In point of fact, the New START treaty pursued with such ardor by President Barrack Obama is flawed, but not fatally so.
"Flawed." Really? The editors of the Arizona Republic consider themselves to have more experience, knowledge and expertise on nuclear security matters than the entire foreign policy community — from both Republican and Democratic administrations — and the leaders of the Pentagon who say that ratification of the New START treaty is a "national security imperative":
The editors must be fans of foreign policy frauds John Bolton and Liz Cheney. I question your judgment.
Here comes the mendacity:
The primary point of contention largely regards a domestic, not international, issue: the degree of commitment of the Obama administration to modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal that will remain in the wake of the reduction to 1,550 strategic warheads and a reduction of "delivery platforms" like missiles and aircraft to 700.
"The primary point of contention" is Sen. Jon Kyl and Senate Republicans injecting partisan party politics into U.S. national security matters. The Obama administration has committed 20% more to nuclear modernization than the George W. Bush administration. The administration has acceeded to Kyl's every demand for more money — this is not about the "commitment" of the Obama administration to modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal. That is simply a lie.
And that lie takes fanciful flight with this bizarre passage:
But for ratification to happen, it is incumbent upon the administration – not Kyl – to clarify its goals regarding this treaty.
Intent on portraying Kyl as purely obstructionist, treaty supporters are detailing the degree of administration back-bending for the senator: 29 meetings, phone calls, briefings or letters; an additional $10 billion thrown into the arsenal-modernization kitty; then, still another $4.1 billion.
But ante-raising is not the same as commitment. Either you're committed to spending what it takes or you are not.
Despite the concession that Sen. Kyl has received everything and more that he has asked for, the editors of the Arizona Republic question President Obama's "commitment" — and by extension, the foreign policy apparatus of the United States and the Pentagon. I can only attribute this to "Obama Derangement Syndrome."
It is the next passage that really pissed me off:
It is regarding commitment to the deal itself, then, that the administration's true goals become fuzzy: Is the president committed to an arms-reduction treaty with the Russians? Or is this treaty merely prelude to Obama's true – and oft-stated – goal of ridding the world of nukes altogether? As anyone following the recent adventures of Iran or North Korea can tell you, one does not necessarily lead to the other. This treaty must stand as a goal unto itself, not as a strategic move in a game of utopian chess. (emphasis added)
In other words, we here at the Arizona Republic are clear-eyed realists who know that this is a dangerous world and maintaining a nuclear deterrent is necessary. We reject peaceniks with "utopian" visions of a nuclear-free world like that flower power hippie Ronald Reagan:
That term “peaceful use of nuclear energy'' is key. Our agreement rests upon important principles of nonproliferation. Neither of our countries will encourage nuclear proliferation nor assist any other country to acquire or develop any nuclear explosive device.
We live in a troubled world, and the United States and China, as two great nations, share a special responsibility to help reduce the risks of war. We both agree that there can be only one sane policy to preserve our precious civilization in this modern age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.
There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.
The editors should educate themselves about the "nuclear abolitionist" Ronald Reagan by reading this lecture by Paul Lettow. President Reagan's Legacy and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy | The Heritage Foundation.
It was Ronald Reagan who negotiated the original START treaty and President Obama is continuing his legacy with the New START treaty.
So instead of engaging in "Obama Derangement Syndrome" and mendacious lies, the editors of the Arizona Republic should focus their ire on the dangerous precedent being set by a U.S. Senator injecting partisan party politics into national security matters instead of kissing his ass. Your opening premise was that "any politician who obstructs that mission out of political opportunism should be held answerable." The editors failed miserably to do so.