Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How long until Lugar gets attacked by the right and thrown off the bus??
Quote:
"At the moment, the Republican caucus is tied up in a situation where people don't want to make choices," Lugar told reporters in the hallway of the Capitol building Wednesday. "No one wants to be counted. No one wants to talk about it." ...
But according to Lugar, the Republican leadership is preventing a debate on the treaty for the rest of the year because they don't want to force their rank-and-file members to take a position on the agreement. ...
"Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty. Maybe people would prefer not to do his or her duty right now," he said. "Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote."
So the ratification of START is being held up by a Republican who wants to increase military spending while they campaigned on cutting the deficit and government spending ehy.
START stalled by Republican senator
START stalled by Republican senator - International Business Times (http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/83080/20101117/treaty-weapons-russia.htm - broken link)
Quote:
Clinton met earlier with several key senators, including Sen. Ricard Durbin, D-IL and Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, in an attempt to garner bipartisan support from the administration's plan to add an extra $4.1 billion to the existing $80 billion already appropriated to be spent over 10 years for weapons modernization.
Didn't Ike warn us about the Military Industrial Complex? So we cannot reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal without spending even more money.
No matter what, do or do not, the American tax payer goes from grabbing their knees to grabbing their ankles and the Offense industry wins. Sweet deal
They better start working together because more & more Americans are getting angry at both parties & they know it.
One small instance is the new rules at the airports for security. Many people in both parties don't like it & are speaking out. Many airports are now working to 'fix' the groping problems by creating machines for people to go through instead of dealing with human hands.
When the people from both sides get angry enough & start shouting about ANY issues, the politicians will respond accordingly, believe that. They know they can only fool the masses for so long & no longer.
The objection is that many Senate Republicans want to add additional spending to our military budget to modernize our nuclear capability.
Jon Kyl wants to add a few billion more to the national deficit basically.
So in other words, Repubs just want to keep adding to the deficit rather than what they pledged to the American people. Nice liars they are.
To the OP, the only reason repubs are against this is because it will be a positive thing for Obama, they hate him so much that they are willing to sacrifice our national security.
If this treaty is such a great deal, then what's the rush if some sober-minded politicians take their time and go over the details? You libs and Obama have screwed the country with healthcare https://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...care-bill.html , so how about we take a little time, knock off the silly whiny GOP bashing, and seriously delve into a treaty that could have serious defense implications.
If this treaty is such a great deal, then what's the rush if some sober-minded politicians take their time and go over the details? You libs and Obama have screwed the country with healthcare https://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...care-bill.html , so how about we take a little time, knock off the silly whiny GOP bashing, and seriously delve into a treaty that could have serious defense implications.
Because so far the objections to it are not on the basis that it is a bad thing but that additional spending is attached to it.
Because so far the objections to it are not on the basis that it is a bad thing but that additional spending is attached to it.
So what? The Senate has to ratify the treaty, the Democrats still own the Senate. Again, what's the rush? Why try to shove this through the lame duck session when everyone is preoccupied with the holidays?
This president's first true foreign policy success is a missile shield collaboration between Russia and NATO? I don't trust this administration to do the right thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ratify START?
