New START Critics Vindicated
There was significant debate here, as I recall, on the advisability of ratifying the arms treaty. Skeptics warned, among other things, about verifiability issues, concerns about conventional weapons, whether the treaty would actually require Russia to reduce its strategic nuclear forces, and alleged ambiguity in the treaty language concerning missile defenses.
At National Review Online, Keith B. Payne writes that he warned in open testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Russian forces were dropping dramatically without an agreement and that they would therefore want to negotiate a treaty to require reductions only in U.S. forces. A year later, in Senate testimony he said his previous fears had been realized. "The treaty indeed appeared to necessitate reductions only by the United States (and) Russia appeared to have negotiated ceilings on strategic nuclear launchers that were above its current stock. Russia would actually have room to build up its forces under New START."
But, said Payne, the administration either ignored or denied these claims, misinforming the Senate. But -- now that the Senate has approved the treaty -- "senior Russian officials have confirmed the fears of U.S. skeptics."
In the Russian Duma's ratification process, says Payne, Russian officials have made public statements validating the concerns of American skeptics. Indeed, the Obama administration might have been trying to rush through the ratification process just to avoid the airing of such statements prior to the Senate vote.
If just half of this is true, it's outrageous.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
There are two kinds of politicians in America: clueless dolts or outright traitors.
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
David Limbaugh: A year later, in Senate testimony he said his previous fears had been realized. "The treaty indeed appeared to necessitate reductions only by the United States (and) Russia appeared to have negotiated ceilings on strategic nuclear launchers that were above its current stock. Russia would actually have room to build up its forces under New START."
But, said Payne, the administration either ignored or denied these claims, misinforming the Senate. But -- now that the Senate has approved the treaty -- "senior Russian officials have confirmed the fears of U.S. skeptics.
If the administration misinformed the Senate, then that's terrible. However, shouldn't the Senate have done its due diligence? Isn't the Senate equally accountable in this, if not more so? Unless I'm not understanding something, Payne, it seems, in his testimony gave the Senate the missing information that the administration did not.
Aug '10
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
Waiting for Captain Reynaud (Putin ) to appear on stage to collect his winnings.
Edited on Jan 18, 2011 at 8:37amRe: New START Critics Vindicated
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
David Limbaugh: A year later, in Senate testimony he said his previous fears had been realized. "The treaty indeed appeared to necessitate reductions only by the United States (and) Russia appeared to have negotiated ceilings on strategic nuclear launchers that were above its current stock. Russia would actually have room to build up its forces under New START."
But, said Payne, the administration either ignored or denied these claims, misinforming the Senate. But -- now that the Senate has approved the treaty -- "senior Russian officials have confirmed the fears of U.S. skeptics.
If the administration misinformed the Senate, then that's terrible. However, shouldn't the Senate have done its due diligence? Isn't the Senate equally accountable in this, if not more so? Unless I'm not understanding something, Payne, it seems, in his testimony gave the Senate the missing information that the administration did not. · Jan 18 at 8:34am
Emily, I agree. The admin's possible misreps do not absolve Senate of duty of due diligence, especially given this administration's general philosophy toward arms reduction and the heightened skepticism that should engender.
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
I'm not a legal expert by any means, so I defer to you, David, and other legal eagles on the question of whether there is a mechanism to reverse this thing. If the Senate was misled, does that open a door to revoke the treaty, or are we past the point of no return?
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
The obfuscators and charlatans will never admit they misled, imho.
Dec '10
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
David Limbaugh
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
If the administration misinformed the Senate, then that's terrible. However, shouldn't the Senate have done its due diligence? Isn't the Senate equally accountable in this, if not more so? ...
Emily, I agree. The admin's possible misreps do not absolve Senate of duty of due diligence, especially given this administration's general philosophy toward arms reduction and the heightened skepticism that should engender. · Jan 18 at 8:41am
Aren’t Capital Hill hearings fanciful productions of theatre?
Where the lack of due diligence means omitting the testimony of Hollywood celebrities who played roles in a movie that glamorized the committee’s pet cause?
Aren’t all of the votes already counted before they are cast?
Aren’t bills read only after they have been passed?
When has our Senate functioned according to plan since the ratification of the 17th Amendment?
Edited on Jan 18, 2011 at 9:13amSep '10
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
The Senators who voted to ratify wanted to be able to say they voted for something that made the world safer. Apparently you are willing to credit them with more sincerity than I am. I assume a good many were more concerned about what the vote would mean for their political careers, thought the treaty would be a net negative or not make any difference, but cast their vote for it; believing it would be a political plus. Some may have been sincere and cast their vote out of ignorance, but I would think that number was not substantial. To continue to believe Washington mainly consists of honorable people who are trying to do the right, despite all of the evidence to the contrary; in my opinion is absurd.
Dec '10
Re: New START Critics Vindicated
In my opinion, there is no recourse, because the Senate did have this information, they just chose to ignore it. Payne testified before the Senate (and the House).