The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in America’s interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.
New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New START’s verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.
New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons – a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty? At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union. That position was right in the 1980’s, and it is still right today. We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population – whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies.
There are many other problems with the treaty, including the limitation on the U.S. ability to convert nuclear systems to conventional systems and the lack of restriction on Russian sea launched cruise missiles. In addition, the recent reports that Russia moved tactical nuclear weapons (which are not covered by New START) closer to our NATO allies, demonstrate that the Obama administration has failed to convince Russia to act in a manner that does not threaten our allies.
If I had a vote, I would oppose this deeply flawed treaty submitted to the Senate. Just because we were out-negotiated by the Russians that doesn’t mean we have to say yes to this. New START’s flaws have to be addressed in the form of changes to the treaty language that, at a minimum, completely de-link missile defense from offensive arms reductions. Other issues would have to be addressed in the ratification process. If this does not happen either now or next year, Senate Republicans, vote no!
– Governor Sarah Palin is a former Republican vice-presidential nominee and author of the bestselling Going Rogue and America by Heart
Spot on. Kill it!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am actually in the middle of ignoring all stories and commentary about you for a week, being fed up with the over coverage of you. But I guess this isn't a story about you, it is you so I guess I can comment.
I agree with you on start, vote no on START.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesarcasm/
Gov. Palin of course has no understanding of National Security issues or International Affairs. Why she doesn't even have an Ivy League diploma! We should leve these issues to the "Smart Set" who by their knowledge and leadership have made this great nation what it is today. Broke & Defenseless.
/sarcasm
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes Palin have anything to say about the DREAM act, which is at least as big a threat to our national security as START?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL Southpaw.
Btw, is Mitch "serious Presidential contender" Daniels still voting "present" on this one?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNicely done, Southpaw.
I understand, we will be hearing from Romney as soon as the weather changes and the wind starts to blow against his finger. Cant find a direction as of yet.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMyKu:
Corner like Tweeting
but without - also *with* - the
"character limits".
---------------
I believe that is Governor Palin's first Corner posting. Outstanding! I hope to see plenty more material specifying her positions in detail.
Anybody can Tweet and communicating that way can easily be derided because of the medium, regardless of the message. The Corner? This is a high class invitation-only joint above derision.
As for New START, I know it is a moonbat position, but I, too, am not in favor of treaties that do not benefit my country.
I still don't understand the Russians' hard-headed opposition to missile defenses - haven't we overtly offered to share that technology with them? We're not worried about a Russian first strike right now - the foreseen problem involves smaller, dare I suggest "rogue", states launching at us. How is it in our interest to hinder our ability to defend against that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOrder66, you seem to have a misconception as to how Palin uses Twitter. On the substantive issues, she tweets to alert her followers of a FB Post on an issue, an op-ed, or in this case, a posting on an issue, or an article by someone else that she thinks is important and that she supports.
She maximizes the effectiveness of Twitter. Even when she makes a 140 character comment, it drives a conversation for days.
In the case of her FB posts, those reach more people than most media outlet postings do, because they are linked, tweeted and retweeted.
Don't underestimate her communication skills, regardless of the medium she chooses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThing about missile defense, if you ever need it, then in hindsight you will wish you had spent a lot more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell Said, Sarah....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI rather ask what is Charles Krauthammer opinion on the subject. To all intellectual Washington elites; you need to understand that your IV league world view is no longer acceptable. The uneducated peasants are rejecting your ideas and want their country back
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent thoughts by Sarah Palin, as usual. There was a time when I thought she would not be a good President. Then I thought she would not be a good CANDIDATE for President because of the inevitable reaction of the left wing.
Now? Left wing over-the-top reactions be damned. Run Sarah, run.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know...she did go to a church growing up where congregants were known to talk in tongues. Come to think of it, I still do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn G: Don't follow politics much, huh? Romney actually wrote an op-ed piece against START clear back in July.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRussia would not be against the concept of missile defense, except for the fact that even with the technical secrets, they could not build it, for lack of money and manufacturing prowess.
This goes all the way back to the Sidewinder missile. The USSR stole ALL the secrets for that missile, and it still took them a decade before they could get one working reliably.
The F-117 Stealth Fighter (though actually attack-bomber) was based on Russian stealth technology regarding radar reflection calculations. They had it first, they couldn't build it, we did.
They copied the B-1 bomber, but their version failed miserably, because they could not build a strong-enough wing-box for the swing-wings, like we did with the B-1 and F-14. Ours was titanium, which was extremely hard to work with in the 70s, theirs was steel.
When theirs wings came off at the Paris Air Show, killing a bunch of people in the process, they canceled the program.
Bottom line: We could give Russia every secret we have. That doesn't mean they could ever get it working on their own.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTreaties require 67 votes for ratification. How can a treaty be "rammed through?" If something gets 67 votes in the senate it wasn't rammed through, it was approved by a large, bipartisan majority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA No Brainer TEA can't figure out?
"...reductions in nuclear weapons from roughly 12,000 to the current level of around 2,000. New START would bring that number down a bit further, to 1,550, while also strengthening verification and transparency for monitoring treaty compliance. That's what's usually called a no-brainer.
And yet key Republicans in Congress—most recently and damagingly Jon Kyl, a senator from Arizona—have repeatedly acted to delay a ratification vote, even though doing so might scuttle the treaty. These senators are supported by a number of right-wing foreign-policy thinkers (including John Bolton, Eric Edelman, Jim Woolsey, and John Yoo) who strongly oppose ratification.."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
A No Brainer TEA can't figure out?
"...reductions in nuclear weapons from roughly 12,000 to the current level of around 2,000. New START would bring that number down a bit further, to 1,550, while also strengthening verification and transparency for monitoring treaty compliance. That's what's usually called a no-brainer.
And yet key Republicans in Congress—most recently and damagingly Jon Kyl, a senator from Arizona—have repeatedly acted to delay a ratification vote, even though doing so might scuttle the treaty. These senators are supported by a number of right-wing foreign-policy thinkers (including John Bolton, Eric Edelman, Jim Woolsey, and John Yoo) who strongly oppose ratification.."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
The author lives in the era of confrontation of the Cold War - it is obvious ... Is it time to change the stereotypes, Ms. Palin?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith best wishes from Russia)))
"Treaties require 67 votes for ratification. How can a treaty be "rammed through?" If something gets 67 votes in the senate it wasn't rammed through, it was approved by a large, bipartisan majority."
I suppose you can figure out the meaning behind the "rammed though" reference if you look at its usage within the context it was written. (I'm full of crazy ideas.) Here:
"It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse