Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate to Vote on START as Soon as Wednesday
TownHall ^ | Dec 14 2010 | Katie Pavlich

Posted on 12/14/2010 1:17:19 PM PST by Germanicus Cretorian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: mojitojoe

The powers that be are doing everything they can to ensure his 4 more years.


21 posted on 12/14/2010 3:38:30 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775

you cannot filibuster a treaty it needs 67 votes to pass


22 posted on 12/14/2010 6:40:22 PM PST by chemengineer42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Germanicus Cretorian
Sigh. Reagan, although certainly in Heavan, would probably be spinning in his grave over this.

The Russians haven't passed it...but they want us to, because they know Obama will UNILATERALLY Disarm the United States, and this just gives him his pretext.

23 posted on 12/16/2010 3:00:53 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
" Kissinger, Lugar, GHW Bush, Bob Gates, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, George Schultz, Condi Rice, etc."

You also forgot 'realist' Colin Powell. LOL!

These guys are not 'realists' although they obviuously masquerade as such. They were BUSH Bots. And Bush was about as real as a piece of

If Reagan were still around he would condemn. Including Baker and Schultz. Reagan explicitly would hjave fired them if he had known what they ultimately would prove to be backing. Indeed, Reagan explicitly BLOCKED any role for Kissinger in his adminstration whatsoever. Why, you might ask?

They are progressive globalists and appeasers, bent on undermining U.S. sovereignty...which the START treaty makes a big dent in.

And then you use the standard communist derogatory term 'neo-con' to describe the REAGAN conservative ooponents to Obama-START who were always authentic conservatives, and never were progressives...such as Ambassador Bolton and Frank Gaffney, and Ed Meese. Plus the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and

So give it a rest, this clearly exposes who you really are.

24 posted on 12/16/2010 3:15:38 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
These idiots would be in favor of a Doomsday Machine.

Speak for yourself. We want missile defense. You liberals are the supporters of MAD.

Do you know what secret deals Obama cut in the START treaty? No? Then don't be an idiot and push for something that you have no clue as to its actual covert content. And even its explicit provisions make clear there are such secret deals. But I'm sure you haven't read it. So you are implementing the Pelosi philosophy...you have to pass it before you can find out what is in the deal.

And what if you were to find out that China actually has 1,000 ICBMS, not 24, and 160 SLBMs that can effectively destroy the U.S. due to a lack of missile defense. So we will have both China and Russia and their rogue state puppets, North Korea and Iran ready to nuke us, and we won't have the necessary capacity to deter them after Obama's unilateral disarmament. Has it never occurred to you to ask why Russia's parliament is not passing this thing? They never intend to. They are a heck of a lot more 'realistic' than your buddies. Under this treaty... we are going to get nuked...you'll never make it to the 'caves' in time.

25 posted on 12/16/2010 3:24:33 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"They were BushBots"

If you mean GHW BushBots, that is correct, but they weren't GW BushBots.

GW went with the NeoCons and ignored the Realists, until the Iraq Study Group. One of the interesting things that came out of Bush's book was that he first offered the SecDef job to James Baker who refused so he offered it to Gates. Bush said he was quite surprised that Baker turned him down because that would have given Baker the distinction of having served as Sec of Treasury, State, and Defense. The reality was that Baker detested GW Bush.

The START treaty is really beyond being about a treaty. It has become a referendum on whether the NeoCons are going to control the GOP. As you mentioned those NeoCons: Bolton, Gaffney, and the American Enterprise Institute as well as the Southern Heritage Foundation.

As for Reagan, he did go with the NeoCons in his first term but abandoned them in his second term because the NeoCons led him into Beirut. A good example of that is Realist Colin Powell who served as Reagan's NSA. Back then Powell was a politically unaffiliated realist just as Realist General Jones was/is politically unaffiliated.

Both the dems and the GOP recruited Powell and he went GOP and served as Joint Chief along with the other realists: Baker, Scowcroft, Gates, and Rice. All the NeoCon were in the Defense Dept: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith, Perle. Those same NeoCons dominated GW Bush's foreign policy.

The NeoCons and the Realists have been crossing swords since the NeoCons left the dem party to become GOPers, but it became a blood feud in the GHW Bush administration especially between Powell and Cheney and especially because GHW Bush was listening to Powell more than Cheney. After all, Cheney was Bush's second choice as SecDef after he couldn't get John Tower confirmed.

The feud will continue and the NeoCons are 99.99% sure that if they can get their Pretty Puppet Palin into the Whitehouse they will be back in charge of US foreign policy.

26 posted on 12/16/2010 4:02:48 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

X-Men


27 posted on 12/17/2010 6:24:34 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson