The time for R fun-and-games is long over ~ anyone, and I do mean anyone, who independently gambles with US foreign policy or diplomacy or national security should be charged with treason ~ I was angry when I read this yesterday ~ but I am rabidly angry after reading today's update [which I will post next] ~ Sooz

KYL INTENT ON DESTROYING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.... This isn't just political madness; this is petty partisanship that literally puts American national security interests at risk.

The issues that Kyl describes as "unresolved" have, in fact, been resolved -- leading administration officials have met with Kyl privately, and mapped out in detail how they're prepared to do exactly what he wants them to do. Even Jon Kyl, with his limited intellect, should be able to understand when someone says "yes" to his demands.

Under the circumstances, it appears that Kyl is opposing the treaty simply because he can. By all indications, Kyl simply cares more about defeating a key priority for President Obama than advancing the nation's interests. I wish that weren't true, but I'm hard pressed to come to any other conclusion.

I wouldn't say the treaty is dead just yet, but Kyl's mindless, genuinely stupid obstinacy has certainly put the arms treaty on death's door. He's suggested the Senate can try again next year, but no serious person believes it can be ratified after the Democratic majority shrinks -- it's pretty much now or never.

And if it fails, the consequences will be severe. U.S.-Russian relations will deteriorate dramatically; inspection of Russian long-range nuclear bases will be suspended indefinitely; and American credibility on the global stage will take a painful hit -- all because one right-wing Arizonan hates the president a little too much.

We are, by the way, talking about a treaty endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

French Ambassador Pierre Vimont recently said that after he and other diplomats reported back to Europe about the possibility of congressional opposition to the treaty, "People ask us, 'Have you been drinking?'"

The world simply doesn't understand how hysterically ridiculous the Republican Party of the 21st century has become. Why would American lawmakers reject a treaty that benefits America? The notion that a legislature would hate their president more than they love their country just doesn't seem plausible.

The administration reached out to Kyl in good faith, and gave him what he wanted. Kyl's response isn't just a betrayal of the White House; it's a betrayal of all of our interests. It's as shameful a moment for Kyl as at any point in his career -- and he doesn't even realize it.

—Steve Benen 3:30 PM November 16, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 026668.php

This is enraging~ John Kyl playing political games with national security to prove his own 'chops' is beyond imagination and beneath contempt ~ Sooz 

THE FALLOUT OF KYL'S BETRAYAL.... The optimism hadn't been expressed publicly, but the White House really did think it finally had a deal in place for Senate ratification of the new arms control treaty with Russia, New START.

Republicans had made Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) their point man on the issue -- it's not clear why, since Kyl has no background or working knowledge of the issue -- and he made specific objections to the Obama administration clear. Officials, in response, gave Kyl what he asked for. The deal, they thought, was done.

Kyl wouldn't even give the White House the courtesy of a phone call to let them know he was betraying them and the nation's national security needs. Worse, the dimwitted Kyl, with the future of American foreign policy in his hands, couldn't even give a coherent rationale for why he'd made the decision -- his office would only say "there doesn't appear to be enough time" in the lame-duck session.

This is what happens when serious officials try to negotiate in good faith with Republicans -- they refuse to take "yes" for an answer, they don't have intellectual capacity to explain why, and the entire country has to suffer the consequences.

The bulk of the Republican foreign policy apparatus enthusiastically supports this treaty, as does the entirety of America's military, diplomatic, and intelligence leadership. Matt Cooper noted late yesterday:

There should be risks, but they don't really exist. Let me put this plainly: They. Don't. Care. They disregard the pleas of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and listen to the confused misjudgments of a buffoon from Arizona. They assume the public isn't paying attention, so there won't be political consequences. They expect this to hurt the foreign policy power of the United States, but they're fine with that since there's a Democratic president.

When it comes to Russia, inspection of the country's long-range nuclear bases will remain suspended indefinitely; the country's hard-liners will be emboldened; and Russia's willingness to cooperate with U.S. on Iran or on Afghanistan will likely disappear.

But in the bigger picture, countries around the globe will see this as a reminder that negotiating with the United States is pointless, since the country is burdened with a Republican Party that puts partisan hatred above the country's interests. It hurts American credibility in ways that are hard to even gauge.

Sleep well, Jon Kyl. Dream of the time when the United States had the respect and stature to lead the world.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM November 17, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 026673.php

From Republican to Republiscum...

This has extraordinarily serious consequences for the US ~ I'm VERY relieved that finally our press media seems to be paying attention and speaking out ~ loudly, per the 'update' below ~ Sooz

Hopefully, this is a sign that at least our press is returning to real reporting and doing their jobs properly ~ Sooz

I wonder why Iran doesn't like the US?
Think there is a reason?

actually, the last time i checked the US was still more popular in Iran than in any other country in the ME other than Israel.

anyone, and I do mean anyone, who independently gambles with US foreign policy or diplomacy or national security should be charged with treason

You think Kyl should be charged with treason because he doesn't support the START treaty?

They're unAmerican and unPatriotic scum.

What "meddling" is Kyl doing?

You need to go back and understand treason before you start claiming that a Senator performing his Constitutional duty to pass judgement on a proposed treaty is "flirting with treason" just because he decided he opposes that treaty.

  

sooz, you're about to get a Captain Hyperbole award for claiming that every day the treaty isn't ratified puts us at more risk.  The world will survive and we will go on if the consideration of the treaty takes more time.  You're starting to sound like Glenn Beck.

I think the treaty should probably be approved by the Senate.  I'm not familiar with its details, so I can't say for sure.  My quibble isn't with the treaty here.  It's with the declaration that Kyl is "flirting with treason" because he decided to oppose the treaty.  That's the way the treaty approval process works.  Senators have the option of supporting or opposing it.  If they were required to support it simply because the President and his supporters want them to support it, we wouldn't have much of a reason to have the Senate involved, and we would have, essentially, a dictatorship.  I think your support of a model where Senators who oppose a Presient's view on treaty are branded "treasonous" is far more damaging to the health of the nation than Kyl's decision.

In my view and in sharp contrast to Kyl's partisan gaming, Sen Lugar IS performing his Constitutional duty ~ Sooz

LUGAR TO GOP: 'PLEASE DO YOUR DUTY FOR YOUR COUNTRY'.... The pending arms control treaty with Russia, New START, has no greater Republican champion than Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana. Lugar, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been Congress' most respected and most credible GOP voice on international affairs, and his unyielding support for the measure should carry considerable weight in Republican circles.

What I find especially interesting this week, however, has been Lugar's willingness to raise the volume of that voice. On Wednesday, the mild-mannered-to-a-fault senator appeared at a press conference alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and was surprisingly animated about the importance of ratification.

Yesterday, Lugar appeared on MSNBC, and again made his case in a more forceful way than is usually expected of him.

"Please do your duty for your country," Lugar said in a message to his colleagues. "We do not have verification of the Russian nuclear posture right now. We're not going to have it until we sign the START treaty. We're not going to be able to get rid of further missiles and warheads aimed at us.

"I state it candidly to my colleagues, one of those warheads ... could demolish my city of Indianapolis -- obliterate it! Now Americans may have forgotten that. I've not forgotten it and I think that most people who are concentrating on the START treaty want to move ahead to move down the ladder of the number of weapons aimed at us."

Urging Republicans to "do their duty" for their country is good advice. If only they weren't so inclined to place party over patriotism.

Watching Lugar this week, it seems the quiet, reserved senior senator is just frustrated. I don't know Lugar personally, but seeing his passion on New START, I wouldn't be surprised if he's noticing that he seems to be the only Republican senator on the Hill who isn't afraid to put our national security needs over petty, partisan nonsense.

For the record, on the vast majority of the major issues of the day, I completely disagree with Lugar's positions. The way in which he's conducted himself during this debate, however, is a reminder that Lugar may be well to my right, but he tends to conduct himself in an honorable way.

Congress would be a less infuriating institution if we could say the same about his Republican colleagues.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM November 20, 2010

http://www.washingtonmont...idual/2010_11/026732.php

So you think it's Senators' Constitutional duty to support the treaty?

Oh my, what is all this?
I don't remember you getting all excited when Repugs were calling Obama and the Dems "traitors",  "unAmerican", and "unPatriotic".
Why the sudden sense of outrage when the shoe is on the other foot?

  

I'm not spinning anything you've said, sooz.  You posted a hysterical blog post about Kyl, adding a comment that "anyone, and I do mean anyone, who independently gambles with US foreign policy or diplomacy or national security should be charged with treason " which certainly implies you think Kyl should be charged with treason.  You later said he's "flirting with treason."  None of your posts had any information in them that Kyl was doing anything except doing his job as a US Senator.  All of this after Kyl decided to vote "no" on the treaty as things stand now.  There's no way to spin what you said into anything except that you think Kyl's lack of support foor the treaty amounts to treason.  That's not only a gross misinterpretation of the definition of treason but an attack on the Constitutional principle of separation of powers.

I don't think this is a partisan issue, but you've made it a partisan issue by implying that opposition to the treaty is treasonous activity on the part of Republicans.
  

Problem is that the Repugs don't seem to care. Right now it's all about getting that uppity Black person out of that White house and that's all there is to it.

you are either with Obama, or you are with the terrorists. ;]

Too long for a bumper sticker.