START treaty and missile defense
The Washington Post had a piece over the weekend entitled Obama faces fight over missile defense as he presses New START ratification. As seems to be the case so often with MSM “news”, it ends up as a combination of left-wing spin and outright fantasy.
It starts out by saying that Obama wants so badly to be the first Democrat to sign an arms treaty with Russia that he’d even delay a vacation to do it. Is that dedication or what?
Then it points out the snag is that the evil Republicans keep wanting to bring up that pesky issue of missile defense. They became infatuated with it under
Satan Reagan and derailed Clinton’s attempts at a treaty because of it. And here the fun begins.
Some Republicans say they want to tweak the Senate resolution of ratification with the goal of then supporting it. Others argue the treaty itself needs amendments which could kill it.
Wow, so you mean the Republicans are so obnoxious that they want to be able to have an actual open debate about the treaty before deciding whether to support it or not? Is the GOP the party of no or is this yet another case like ObamaCare where they are supposed to just say aye now and read it later? But it gets worse.
Treaty supporters say the outcry over missile defense is unfounded – and suspect it is a tactic to score political points. They note that there is almost nothing on missile defense in the treaty, which runs more than 300 pages with annexes, and Obama has continued many of George W. Bush’s missile-defense policies.
“One of the great ironies is, he made sure there was no way to attack the treaty as being tough on missile defense,” Greg Thielmann, a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association, said of Obama. “And yet that’s exactly one of the main rationales used by treaty critics.”
Let’s see… Obama and the Democrats know missile defense is a hot-button issue for Republicans, so they intentionally ignore it and then get hysterical because Republicans ask what’s up? C’mon, how annoying can the GOP be? Don’t they remember “we won, so shut up”? If you oppose it, clearly it has to be for political purposes, while if you support it, it’s just as obviously based on its merits.
I wonder what Mary Beth Sheridan meant by saying Obama is continuing many of Bush’s missile defense policies. The first thing that comes to mind for me is how Obama agreed with Putin (the guy who’s arming Venezuela) rather than Bush over putting up missile defense systems in eastern Europe. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “continue” is.
But then it gets worse yet with the quote from the “expert”. Hmmm, “Arms Control Association”. There is no indication of who this group might be. Let’s check it out. The executive director came on board in 2001 after a stint as executive director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers. His deputy director “works to promote efforts to reduce the humanitarian impact of certain types of conventional weapons, monitor the global arms trade, and prevent use of weapons in outer space.” In case there’s any doubt this is a group of peaceniks who are in favor of anything that is anti-military in general and anti-US military in particular, check out the foundations they get grants from. It sounds like the names you hear at the end of every PBS show:
—Carnegie Corporation of New York
—Heinrich Böll Stiftung
—John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
—Prospect Hill Foundation
—Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
—William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
That was enough for me to know the rest of the article wasn’t worth reading unless you swallowed poison and didn’t have any ipecac handy, but in case you’re wondering, the term “Star Wars” appears twice.