Quote:

---

Senate Republicans mounted a counter-attack Sunday against ratifying a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia this year, trying to put off a vote that Democrats say they will win if it is held.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky led the way, telling CNN's "State of the Union" that members of his party need more time to consider the START accord.

"I've decided I cannot support the treaty," McConnell said in his first outright rejection of ratifying the treaty during the current lame-duck session of Congress.

The treaty would resume mutual inspections of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, while limiting both nations to 1,550 warheads and 700 launchers each.

Republican senators are "uneasy" about the pact, and trying to get a vote before Christmas was not the best way to "get the support of people like me," McConnell said.

His unequivocal stance increased the GOP's public opposition to ratification, which would require at least 10 GOP senators to vote with the Democrats to reach the two-thirds majority of 67 needed.

If the vote gets put off to the new Congress, as Republicans want, the number of GOP votes needed for ratification rises to at least 14 because the Democrats will have a diminished majority of 53 seats.

---

Quote:

---

If part of the pact is written poorly, which as I understand it is, why rush into a bad agreement ?

---

Quote:

---

It's hard to believe that ratification of the New START treaty is turning into a pitched battle between some Republicans and the White House. This treaty is simply too unexceptional to carry such heavy freight.

The proposed cuts in nuclear arsenals are modest. The START I agreement cut deployed strategic nuclear weapons on both sides roughly 50 percent, from between 10,000 and 12,000 down to 6,000. The never-ratified (but generally abided-by) START II Treaty cut forces by another 50 percent, down to between 3,000 and 3,500. The 2002 Moscow Treaty made further deep cuts, bringing each side down to between 1,700 and 2,200. And New START? It would bring the number on both sides down to 1,550.

The treaty's critics argue that these cuts represent a great leap toward zero and the end of the American nuclear deterrent. The three previous arms control treaties, all negotiated by Republican presidents, and two of which were ratified with full Republican Party support, cut deployed nuclear weapons from near 12,000 down to around 2,000 -- about 80 percent. If anyone deserves credit, or blame, for moving the United States in the direction of zero, the two Bushes deserve a lot more than President Obama.

Sen. Jon Kyl and others are demanding that the administration put more money into modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, since old warheads will become unreliable without major investments in the scientists and infrastructure behind them. As far as anyone can tell, the administration is trying to meet this request.

Some critics express concern that the treaty will limit American missile defense capabilities. The administration insists it will not, and senior officials are on record to that effect. Yet the critics don't seem to be pressing for any new spending on missile defense -- as Kyl is doing on the issue of force modernization. If critics are truly worried about missile defense, that is where they should be focusing their efforts.

Some who oppose the treaty see it as the marquee item in the administration's "reset" policy. They rightly worry that this policy has given Russia too much at the expense of Eastern and Central European allies as well as Georgia and Ukraine. But here again, none of the critics has suggested making any linkage between the treaty and Russian policy toward its neighbors.

There is little doubt that its negotiations improved the mood of relations between Moscow and Washington. This has had some payoff, both in Moscow's behavior and in the administration's. One suspects the administration has moved in a tougher direction on other issues partly because it has the treaty in hand. Successful cooperation with Russia on one front has allowed it to press Russia harder on others. The administration is already paying greater attention to worried Europeans and protesting Russia's continued occupation of Georgia. Would defeat of the treaty help Russia's neighbors? I doubt it. Those who want to fix problems with the reset should focus more intently on those problems. New START is not one of them.

Senators have an obligation to block a treaty that they believe may damage the national interest. But on this issue, Republicans can and should take the high ground and set a better standard. The treaty has its problems -- in verification, where the Russians seem never to be entirely trustworthy, as well as in counting mechanisms -- and so did the treaties negotiated by the two Bush administrations. But New START is not so badly flawed as to warrant rejection.

---

Quote:

---

Top military officials said on Thursday the United States badly needed ratification of the New START nuclear treaty with Russia, even as Republican senators questioned its implications for national security.

General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters all the military service chiefs were "very much behind this treaty" because it would provide transparency as Russia and the United States modernize their nuclear forces.

---

Quote:

---

Republicans are raising concerns about the accord but failing to offer amendments. Some Republican lawmakers challenged the wisdom of the reductions.

"It is naively optimistic to assume that a world with fewer nuclear weapons is the same thing as a safer world," Republican John Ensign said in a Senate speech. "Our security has long depended on a strong and flexible deterrent."

Republican speakers questioned whether the treaty would impede U.S. efforts to build missile defense systems and expressed skepticism about whether the verification regime would be effective.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, whose Foreign Relations Committee led the review of the treaty, asked opponents repeatedly if they had amendments to propose so the Senate could begin to address the real issues with the treaty.

Republicans were discussing a two-page list of amendments, but had made no decision on when they would introduce the amendments, how many there would be or what they would say.

---

Quote:

---

Republicans were focused on an issue critical to them -- "ensuring the government doesn't shut down 56 hours from now" because of a funding dispute, the aide said.

"It becomes pretty obvious, doesn't it?" said Senator Richard Durbin. "This isn't about offering amendments. ... This is about delaying the ultimate passage of this critical treaty for the safety of the United States."

---

Quote:

---

Administration officials said passage of the New START treaty would be the foundation of any future arms control effort with Russia, including reducing the number of undeployed nuclear weapons and the number of tactical nuclear weapons.

"If we don't have New START in place, then going forward to reduce tactical nuclear weapons and nondeployed weapons over time, which the president has said we'd like to do, is just not going to be possible," said Jim Miller, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

---

Quote:

---

Good for McConnell, that is why we conservatives elect guys like him. If nikki2 liked what he did the country would be in shambles.

---

Quote:

---

According to a new Gallup poll, 59 percent of Democrats say it is generally more important for political leaders to compromise to get things, with 18 percent saying it is more important to stick to your beliefs. But 41 percent of Republicans questioned in the survey say it is more important for lawmakers to stick to their beliefs even if little gets done, with 32 percent saying compromise is more important.

---