It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to the New York Times, Kyl said: "It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing — frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff."
BTW: Did anyone else notice that even Pat Buchanan thinks the Senate should ratify the New START treaty?
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona is holding up the treaty until he gets more assurances that the administration will do the tests and upgrades necessary to maintain the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons. He should receive those assurances.
Maintaining the credibility of the U.S. deterrent is a vital national interest. But does this justify holding the treaty hostage?
Without a treaty, we lose our right and our ways and means to verify that Russia is carrying out the terms of arms treaties already agreed upon.
How does leaving the United States in the dark about who is doing what with Moscow’s nuclear weapons enhance our security?
Not only are our allies behind this treaty — as are Republican secretaries of state and defense and ex-national security advisers — so, too, is the Pentagon.
If the joint chiefs say this treaty is good for America, what do the reluctant Republican senators believe is wrong with it? Have they considered the impact of the treaty’s defeat on Russia?
When Pat Buchanan and George W.H. Bush both say the treaty is the right move, it's hard to buy Kyl's concerns about it weakening America.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't know about you, but the nuke treaty can wait.
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't know about you, but the nuke treaty can wait.
You are right, you don't know about me. I couldn't disagree more. (Neither can Pat Buchanan - big neocon)
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't know about you, but the nuke treaty can wait.
You are right, you don't know about me. I couldn't disagree more. (Neither can Pat Buchanan - big neocon)
Buchanan vocally opposes those neoconservatives whom he calls "undocumented aliens from the Left, carrying with them the viruses of statism and globalism". He describes their first generation as people who began as "Trotskyist, socialists or Social Democrat", then became "JFK-LBJ Democrats", but broke with the Left during the Vietnam War and "came into their own" during Reagan's administration.He said he welcomed neoconservatives during the early 1970s, but that it has become an inquisition, "hurling anathemas at any who decline to embrace their revised dogmas." Buchanan compares "Neocons" to squatters who take over a once-beloved home (the Republican Party) and convert it into a crack house.
Originally posted by Misoir
Why are they not allowed to go home to their families for Christmas and New Year’s?
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Originally posted by Misoir
Why are they not allowed to go home to their families for Christmas and New Year’s?
Stop, I'm getting misty.
As far as eliminating 'lame duck' session, that is just patently absurd. The duly elected officials have an obligation to their constituency. (Notwithstanding Sarah Palin, of course)
As far as Buchanan's flavor of conservatism, I suppose anyone slightly left of McCarthy ain't extreme enough for you.edit on 16-12-2010 by kinda kurious because: typos
Originally posted by kinda kurious
This is why Americans disapprove of how Congress is doing because there is too much bickering instead of working together in a system of checks and balances on behalf of the American people. Both sides are stewards that should represent the will of the American people.
Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by kinda kurious
Maybe they could look to Nancy Pelosi He's pretty smart !!