It is currently 03/29/24 2:29 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2   Page 2 of 2   [ 41 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/21/10 10:38 am • # 26 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/23/09
Posts: 3185
Location: ontario canada
This makes me sick.  If the press wasn't so busy tracking Bristol on dancing with the stars, the government wouldn't get away with behaving so badly.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/21/10 12:34 pm • # 27 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112

Mac, I have NO sense of humor about this specific incident ~ by all accounts, it's a strong and beneficial treaty, fully endorsed not only by our own bipartisan foreign affairs/military/policy experts, but by our allies as well ~ to delay a vote for no valid reason beyond ego is the most craven, dangerous, and despicable act against the public imaginable ~

Sooz



Top
  
PostPosted: 11/21/10 2:18 pm • # 28 
It's also stupid.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/21/10 3:18 pm • # 29 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
sooz08 wrote:

Mac, I have NO sense of humor about this specific incident ~ by all accounts, it's a strong and beneficial treaty, fully endorsed not only by our own bipartisan foreign affairs/military/policy experts, but by our allies as well ~ to delay a vote for no valid reason beyond ego is the most craven, dangerous, and despicable act against the public imaginable ~

Sooz


START is the centerpiece of foreign policy with Russia.  to lose it is to lose our way.  if i can be more blunt, let me know.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/21/10 7:04 pm • # 30 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I'll agree with Gop that what Kyl is doing is not treasonous.  Treason has, at least in the eyes of a traitor, a higher purpose.  What Kyl is doing is playing the most craven form of partisan politics which has as it's sole goal the aquisition of power.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/23/10 6:28 am • # 31 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
jimwilliam wrote:
I'll agree with Gop that what Kyl is doing is not treasonous.  Treason has, at least in the eyes of a traitor, a higher purpose.  What Kyl is doing is playing the most craven form of partisan politics which has as it's sole goal the aquisition of power.

I've given gop's and jim's opinons a lot of thought ~ but neither has swayed my own opinion that treasonous behavior includes anyone who knowingly and intentionally puts US national security at risk for no reason beyond ego, especially by [as jim says] "... playing the most craven form of partisan politics which has as it's sole goal the acquisition of power" ~ at a minimum, it exposes absolute disloyalty to the American people ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/27/10 1:26 pm • # 32 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Thankfully, this isn't being allowed to just drift off the public radar ~ Sooz

SCOWCROFT GOES THERE.... Politico reports today on Sen. Dick Lugar (R) of Indiana, who has taken a strong leadership role on New START ratification, despite the larger partisan dynamic. That the treaty was negotiated by a president of the other party appears completely irrelevant to the respected former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But the article notes that the elder statesmen of the Republican Party have been left largely mystified by the blind partisanship of their party's senators. (via Ben Armbruster)

Quote:

In an attempt to rally bipartisan support for the treaty, the White House has enlisted the kind of GOP foreign policy wise men that Lugar exemplifies -- among them former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker. But they have had no success with members of their own party, and it has left them scratching their heads over the source of the GOP opposition.

"It's not clear to me what it is," said Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush who noted that this START treaty is not very different from previous ones negotiated and ratified under Republican presidents. "I've got to think that it's the increasingly partisan nature and the desire for the president not to have a foreign policy victory."

This is no small observation. Scowcroft, one of the more respected Republican voices in the national security establishment, is noting, on the record, that he suspects his own party is putting their partisan interests above the needs of the nation. The underlying point of an observation like Scowcroft is that he sees his Republican Party putting petty partisanship above national security.

What's more, others in the political establishment are beginning to reach the same conclusion. AEI's Norm Ornstein, marveling at GOP's misconduct this week, said, "I cannot fathom why they are doing what they are doing." The Washington Post Dana Milbank noted last week that Republicans appear to be "trying to weaken Americans' security," concluding, "To borrow Bush's phrase, are Republicans not interested in the security of the American people?" Paul Krugman argued that the GOP is blocking ratification "not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it's an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it."

I can appreciate the reluctance of questioning politicians' motives, but there's an ongoing effort underway to try to understand why Republicans would choose to act this way. So far, a variety of observers from left to right seem to be having trouble identifying a good-faith rationale for the GOP's opposition. That some of this is coming from the likes of Brent Scowcroft should send a pretty loud signal to the rest of the political world.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM November 27, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 026816.php


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/27/10 1:33 pm • # 33 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
And here's still more ~ Sooz

By [url=/author/Alex Seitz-Wald]Alex Seitz-Wald[/url] on Nov 27th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption'

In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your countryâ€



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/27/10 2:00 pm • # 34 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
there's an ongoing effort underway to try to understand why Republicans would choose to act this way.

Pfft! That's an easy one.

Of the top of my head:

The current administration is not in republican hands
The president is not one of them white boys
Some folks paid good money to the reps and they expect results
Waterloo!


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/27/10 3:25 pm • # 35 
macroscopic wrote:
you are either with Obama, or you are with the terrorists. ;]
More like: If you are with Obama you are with the terrorists.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/29/10 12:11 pm • # 36 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
The 'motivations line' was breached on January 21, 2009, by some of us ~ but it's [at least somewhat] encouraging to see/hear prominent conservatives approaching that breach as well ~ Sooz

BROACHING THE INVIOLABLE MOTIVATIONS LINE.... E.J. Dionne Jr. considers Senate Republicans' tactics on blocking ratification of the pending arms treaty, New START, and concludes that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and his cohorts are "playing Russian roulette with our nation's interests."

Quote:

If this treaty is not ratified, the only winner will be Vladimir Putin. Is Kyl, who on "Meet the Press" Sunday reiterated his desire to delay consideration of the treaty, really willing to risk giving Putin and anti-American forces in Russia a leg up?

You don't have to believe me on this. As [neoconservative interventionist Robert Kagan] wrote this month in The Post, defeat of the treaty will "strengthen Vladimir Putin," who would use its demise "to stir more anti-Western nationalism, further weakening an already weak [President Dmitry] Medvedev and anyone else who stands for a more pro-Western approach." It's not my habit to agree with [Pat Buchanan], but he's right in saying: "Killing the treaty would morally disarm those Russians who see their future with the West."

And the Financial Times, hardly a left-wing newspaper, noted that Kyl's core arguments against the treaty are "so weak as to call into question Mr. Kyl's good faith." We don't need more time to consider it; the treaty has been debated for months. And the Obama administration has made a slew of concessions to Kyl to modernize our nuclear program. What, besides the identity of our current president, justifies this obstruction?

I can appreciate why it's unusual, if not downright reprehensible in some circles, to question politicians' motives. It's the inviolable line -- everyone is expected to be patriots acting in good faith, with sincere disagreements over the merits of competing policies. Without clear evidence of malicious intentions, motivations are supposed to be largely off limits in the civil discourse, especially when it comes to Republicans.

The problem with the GOP lately is that even those inclined to give the party the benefit of the doubt simply can't come up with a good-faith explanation for their actions -- which leads to awkward questions about whether they'd actually put their partisan goals ahead of the national interest. It's almost a modified, political version of Occam's Razor -- if one can't come up with a reasonable explanation for a party's actions on policy grounds, it necessarily makes questions about motivations plausible.

Dionne isn't the only one wondering about this. Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, can't figure out why his own party would be acting this way, leading him to assume Republican senators are putting "the desire for the president not to have a foreign policy victory" ahead of the nation's security interests.

AEI's Norm Ornstein, marveling at GOP's misconduct, said, "I cannot fathom why they are doing what they are doing." The Washington Post Dana Milbank noted last week that Republicans appear to be "trying to weaken Americans' security," concluding, "To borrow Bush's phrase, are Republicans not interested in the security of the American people?" Paul Krugman argued that the GOP is blocking ratification "not because of legitimate objections, but simply because it's an Obama administration initiative; if sabotaging the president endangers the nation, so be it."

If Republicans care about squelching questions about their intentions, they should probably come up with at least mildly coherent talking points. Or they could drop the nonsense and endorse ratification, but that appears highly unlikely.

—Steve Benen 4:45 PM November 29, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 026841.php


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/10 10:40 am • # 37 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Once again, Orwell's 1984 leaps into my mind ~ Image ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine ~ Sooz

KYL'S BAD FAITH ON NEW START.... It seems to have been largely forgotten, but back in July, two months after American and Russian leaders had come to terms on New START, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) raised some mild concerns. Kyl, the GOP's point man on the nuclear arms treaty, said so long as the Obama administration committed necessary resources to maintaining and modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Republicans would consider the rest of the treaty "relatively benign."

The White House was pleased. After all, Kyl's concerns were easy to address, and the administration quickly announced that they would gladly commit to Kyl's requests. Leading administration officials met with Kyl privately, and mapped out in detail how they're prepared to do exactly what he asked them to do. Even Jon Kyl, with his limited intellect, should have been able to understand when someone says "yes" to his demands.

But it doesn't matter.

Quote:

It's official: Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl will not vote for ratification of the START treaty in its current state.

The Senate GOP point man on the nuclear arms agreement told host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that without any amendments, he could not vote for the treaty.

"This treaty needs to be fixed. We're not going to have time to do that," the Senate minority whip said.

Kyl is, of course, just making things up as he goes along, inventing new reasons to oppose the treaty -- reasons that don't make any sense to anyone who actually gives a damn about the policy. It's as if Kyl identified how best to negotiate in good faith, and then chose to do the exact opposite.

Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced he'll oppose the treaty, too, muttering something about "trying to rush things right here before Christmas Eve," which might make more sense if the treaty hasn't been sitting in the Senate since April.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), meanwhile, whined for a quite a while yesterday on the Senate floor, saying he's "ignored" the issue of nuclear proliferation because he's been "pretty busy around here stopping some bad ideas or at least trying to." The work, he added, has been "really wearing on the body."

I might suggest that if a U.S. senator can't keep up with a variety of important issues at the same time, a career in shaping federal policy might not be the best choice.

Putting all of this aside, are the votes going to be there are or not? Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) sounded relatively optimistic this morning, but Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), who's been fantastic on this issue, was cautious about predicting ratification. To ratify, nine Senate Republicans would have to do the right thing, but at this point, I only see seven firm "yes" votes -- Bennett (Utah), Brown (Mass.), Collins (Maine), Lugar (R-Ind.), Murkowski (R-Alaska), Snowe (Maine), and Voinovich (Ohio).

Would every other Republican in the chamber ignore the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, eight former secretaries of state from both parties, five former secretaries of defense from both parties, seven former Strategic Command chiefs, national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces? It's certainly possible.

Remember, the only organized groups on the planet hoping to see the Senate fail to ratify this treaty are Iranian officials, North Korean officials, hardliners in Russia, and most Republicans in the nation's capital.

Update: The Senate considered a poison-pill amendment yesterday, offered by Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), that would have killed the treaty. It failed, garnering only 37 votes. The good news is, New START cleared the hurdle. The bad news is, far-right senators might use this as an excuse to scuttle the entire initiative and undermine U.S. foreign policy.

—Steve Benen 10:55 AM December 19, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027162.php


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/20/10 7:45 am • # 38 
GOP doesn't see anything wrong with anything any republican has ever done. He will say he doesn't agree with "this or that", but at the time that 'this or that' was happening, GOP had nothing to say on the matter.

It's a fact that the R's tried to stop any democrat initiative from passing. GOP can keep his head up his ass and insist that isn't true but history doesn't support him.

I thought it was appalling that one year only last summer the R's insisted on a tax cut for hedge fund managers be added to a bill to extend unemployment benefits.

Republicans tend to be either outright scumbags or they make an attempt to put a smiley face on their scumbaggedness. Either way, they stand for nothing more than a belief that plutocrats are the proper people to rule the country.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/20/10 8:12 am • # 39 
And they claim that Democrats are elitists....


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/21/10 7:03 am • # 40 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
So you think it's Senators' Constitutional duty to support the treaty?

It is a Senator's duty to work in the best interests of the United States.  When you have a senator (or senators) saying "no" for no good reason they can elucidate - especially in the face of statements from the intelligence community, the Defense Department and past Secretaries of State from both parties of the importance of the treaty - it's a pretty safe bet that partisan politics rather than national interest is the reason.  Kyl's committee has had months to work on the treaty and they have yet to come up with one single reason why it should not be ratified. 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/22/10 2:30 pm • # 41 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
i think this might be a good time to say "neener neener neener".


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2   Page 2 of 2   [ 41 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.