On START

A short while ago, I called attention elsewhere to "[a] post with some good links and righteous commentary," as a way of augmenting my previous complaints about the immorality of Lyin' Jon Kyl and how idiotically the MSM has been covering this story of Republican obstructionism. Probably should have cross-posted them here, but let's just pick it up from this related note, also cross-posted:

On a related note, how many people, even considering only those who have been paying some attention to this story, knew about this aspect of the Republican Party's wish to Keep America Safe (From Anything That Could Be Seen As A Success By The Obama Administration) by refusing to sign the treaty?

Let's start with START, the proposed nuclear pact with Russia that Senate Republicans such as Jon Kyl (Ariz.) are attempting to derail, at least until the next Congress. Since the expiration of the previous START treaty last December, there have been no U.S. inspectors in Russia to keep an eye on the country's thousands of nuclear warheads. If the Senate doesn't come up with the 67 votes needed for ratification, says Travis Sharp of the Center for a New American Security, there's a risk Russia will retaliate by removing its logistical support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, abandoning its cooperation in preventing nuclear proliferation, and thwarting U.S. efforts to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

But don't take his word for it. Listen to Richard Lugar, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee and one man who still puts the national interest above political considerations. "We're talking today about the national security of the United States of America," he pleaded on Wednesday. "[T]his treaty must be ratified and be ratified in this session of the Congress.... We're talking about thousands of warheads that are still there, an existential problem for our country. To temporize at this point I think is inexcusable."

Or listen to Bob Gates, the Bush/Obama defense secretary. "The new START treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, calling for a strong bipartisan majority to support the treaty because of "the security it provides to the American people."

To borrow Bush's phrase, are Republicans not interested in the security of the American people?

(source | via)