Democrats are trying to rush a vote again, which can only mean there’s something more they don’t want us to know about:
Top Democratic allies of President Barack Obama called Thursday for quick Senate ratification of a US-Russia treaty committing the former Cold War foes to major nuclear arms cuts.
“This is too important to delay,” said Democratic Senator John Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tasked with taking up the pact before a full vote by the entire chamber.
A nuclear weapon hasn’t been detonated in a wartime act in 65 years but the world can’t afford to wait a single week to ratify a treaty to cut each side’s warhead arsenal from over 2,000 to 1,550?
There’s a reason they’re rushing, which means we should really read the treaty first, but I’m guessing we’ll have as much full access to that as we did to the final version of the Obamacare bill.
As a reminder for why the treaty should be heavily scrutinized, any new rules or regs imposed in international treaties — as well as new power provided to individuals or groups — once ratified, trump any country’s Constitution (for example, technically, the 2nd Amendment could be overruled provided two nations signed an international treaty outlawing guns). We’re seeing the affection this group of people have for the US Constitution, so, yeah, somebody ought to read this treaty first — and s-l-o-w-l-y.
In the meantime, George Stephanopoulos asked President Obama about Sarah Palin’s view that Obama’s new pledge to not retaliate to certain attacks with nukes is irresponsible, and Obama replied this way:
“The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”
They don’t teach nuclear physics up there in Alaska the way they do at the Chicago branch of ACORN.
Obama cited SecDef Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying that if they’re okay with it, we all should be. Of course they’re okay with it — Obama’s their boss!
HotAir pointed to a speech that Gates gave in 2008 in which Gates seemed perfectly understanding that nukes could be used in retaliation for a bio terror attack — something Obama has pledged not to do. Said Gates:
As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons â€“ and potentially can threaten us, our allies, and friends â€“ then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena â€“ or with other weapons of mass destruction â€“ could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic responseâ€¦
That certainly doesn’t sound like the Gates who Obama claims is fully on-board with the new “Peace through pledging not to retaliate too harshly” powder-puff strategy.
And isn’t it funny that Sarah Palin has grown to such a degree that national talk hosts are now asking Obama about her positions and making it look as if he’s already campaigning against her in 2012?