Richard Lugar: America Cannot Afford to Fail on START

-


Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar is on fire — telling his colleagues that the failure to ratify START will be enormously consequential to the ‘real’ national security interests of the United States.
This is an enormously important, inspired, passionate demand to pass START — and I am in total agreement with Senator Lugar.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

15 comments on “Richard Lugar: America Cannot Afford to Fail on START

  1. non-hater says:

    Don’t be so hasty, John W. The only thing we can say for sure is that we’re headed for a nadir.

    Reply

  2. John Waring says:

    That the new START treaty is a bone of contention at all is a stunning indicator that our political discourse has reached a pathetic nadir.

    Reply

  3. Pahlavan says:

    This news brief published by the economist says it all:
    “Israel

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Loosing your home???
    Got a job??
    Got health insurance???
    Afford to send your kid to a university???
    Is the street you live on in good shape?
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/u-s-taxpayers-are-paying-for-israel-s-west-bank-occupation-1.324941
    U.S. taxpayers are paying for Israel’s West Bank occupation
    According to a June 2010 fact sheet on the USAID Internet site, last year American taxpayers funded the paving of 63 kilometers of asphalt roads in the West Bank.
    continues……..

    Reply

  5. jonst says:

    Poor ‘issue framing’. Frame it as an “existential threat” to Israel. That will get their attention.

    Reply

  6. dalivision says:

    Lugar may be correct but the rest of his party is to taking down everything Obama attempts.

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “This pattern may not readily meet the eye but if you temporarily were to accept my premise and, say go back and read the last six months of posts or further back, I think you would find this hard to miss”
    Whats to like? Obama is either a complete and utter political wuss, or a RW ringer.
    Do you suppose there might just be a reason for the trouncing the Dems received?
    I don’t recall Steve leveling any unfair criticisms. In fact, his criticisms have been far too tepid in my opinion.

    Reply

  8. Dan Kervick says:

    Unfortunately, Max Boot

    Reply

  9. DavidT says:

    Jackie,
    Appreciate your followup and the respectful way you shared your views. Steve would argue the same. But I am convinced if you read his campaign 2008 posts and subsequent ones closely it would be hard to miss that he quite dislikes the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and revels in the opportunity to criticize him and occasionally, begrudgingly says positive things.
    This pattern may not readily meet the eye but if you temporarily were to accept my premise and, say go back and read the last six months of posts or further back, I think you would find this hard to miss. I don’t think criticism is unfair of any one. I just feel that from a think thank posing as a public policy analysis, criticism or particular arguments should be made on the basis of a particular ideological framework rather than based on personalities and who one might or might not like or know.
    Thanks.

    Reply

  10. John Waring says:

    Can I trade DeMint for Lugar?

    Reply

  11. Jackie says:

    DavidT,
    I don’t think your comment was fair to Steve. I’ve never noticed him not liking the President.

    Reply

  12. WigWag says:

    A few neoconservatives are smart enough to support the START Treaty including:
    Max Boot,
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/381480
    and Robert Kagan,
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072904902.html

    Reply

  13. DavidT says:

    Steve,
    So glad you recently became aware of the START Treaty.
    Glad you have an opportunity to give a shout-out to Senator
    Lugar as it’s obvious this treaty is now going nowhere soon
    now. Would have been nice if you had been able to nudge
    aside, for a few moments, your dislike of our current
    president, just for the sake of the country, to point out how
    important this issue is even if it’s passage might take a small
    breeze out of your foreign policy dismissals of the incumbent
    president. But then perhaps I need to remember that you’re
    strength isnt really in promoting good policies but in
    undermining and sitting in opposition to those you dislike (or
    to the actors you dislike personally). I may be unfair here but
    find it revealing that you finally posted something on this topic
    now that the Senate Minority Whip finally decided not to
    support it.
    Dissappointedly (but not unfairly, really),
    DavidT

    Reply

  14. non-hater says:

    Lugar is correct, but being right doesn’t really matter to the Right any more. The only things that matter are tax cuts and tearing down Obama. Oh, and Israel.

    Reply

  15. WigWag says:

    “This is an enormously important, inspired, passionate demand to pass START — and I am in total agreement with Senator Lugar.” (Steve Clemons)
    So am I.
    Passing START is critical, though the importance of doing so has little to do with the actual subject matter of the treaty.
    While the actual ramifications of START on the nuclear weapons postures of the U.S. and Russia are pretty unimportant, failure to pass START could have a devastating effect on U.S.-Russian relations.
    One of the few areas where the Obama foreign policy team has actually done a reasonably good job is in repairing relations with the Russians. There is no inherent reason why the U.S. and Russia should treat each other suspiciously. While we may find Russian behavior in their near abroad objectionable, it’s hard to come up with a legitimate reason why Russia is any less entitled to pursue its interests than the United States is to pursue ours.
    With the economic, demographic and moral demise of our Western European and Japanese allies, the United States needs new partners in the world; Russia may not be a perfect candidate, but there are few perfect candidates to be found (India is the only one I can think of). Increasing cooperation with Russia is profoundly in the interest of the United States because Russia can be extremely helpful in many areas that the United States is concerned about (e.g. Iran) and extremely unhelpful in those same areas if the United States treats Russia poorly.
    Failure to pass START will be seen as a slap in the face to the Russians and it would be a major “unforced” American error.
    Neoconservatives who can’t bring themselves to forget the Cold War are making a potentially terrible error by opposing START.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *