Posted on 12/17/2010 11:43:47 AM PST by American Dream 246
Governor Palin writes the following piece at the National Review:
"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!"
Sarah Palin
Update: Governor Palin also spoke against the START treaty in a joint interview with Congresswoman Bachmann in April, in her Southern Republican Leadership Conference speech also in April, and in a Facebook post in November to newly elected Congress members where she challenged them to hold to firm convictions and bold actions.
.
JOHN KERRY = Yes on START
AMERICAN PEOPLE = NO on START
.
Merry / Happy to you, Ronnie.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2644146/posts
Good Sarah....now how about saying something about repealing DADT?
A question for all: Apparently a lot of things are going to happen in the Senate this weekend as Harry Reid desperately tries to push through his agenda at the last minute.
Is there any way we can filibuster the START Treaty, the Dream Act, and the repeal of DADT?
< crickets >
Hi Ronnie, Merry Christmas and BUMP
A treaty needs a 2/3 vote of the Senate to be passed, which is 7 votes more than they need to break a filibuster. Personally I don’t think it has a snowball’s chance of passing.
As for the Dream Act and DADT, if they can get 40 Pubs to stand against it, yes should be able to filibuster it. The RATS could try to attach it to a spending bill, which can’t be filibustered. They are not supposed to attach major legislation to spending bills for just that reason, but that hasn’t stopped Pelosi and Reid in the past. But it looks like they are going to just going with a continuing resolution, so there probably won’t be any spending bill until next year.
The question is whether the pub squishes who may vote for the bill are also going to be ready to vote to break a filibuster. If not, they will be stopped in the House next year.
Sure if we had real Republicans in office instead of the closet socialists, but we don't.
She is alone in the leadership of the Conservative movement... no one else even comes close.
LLS
I think Sarah lost the privilege of being called Governor when she quit midway through her term.
Well, I guess you'd better stop that thinking, because you are really poor at it.
Of course she gets to retain her title of last elected office.
That you can parrot the false narrative that she 'quit', as if she were just lazy or didn't care, shows you are either grossly misinformed or just not very bright.
People resign from office for a variety of reasons, some of which are very noble, as Sarah did.
That weak crap won't fly around here, sorry bub. Take it elsewhere if all you want to do is piss in the corn flakes.
The same ones who complain about her quitting would be yammering about how un-ethical she is, how much baggage all those CORRUPTION headlines gave her.
She took a risk because she was facing unfounded ruinous charges to her very reputation. And to her financial health.
She chose the “quitter” label, instead of the “corrupt” label.
The Kobayashi Maru test, in real life.
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.