|

GOP extremists will oppose Obama even when national security is at stake

 00000party-of-no-jsh021809dapc.jpg

Remember when Republicans could always be counted on to support the national security establishment?

Remember when the GOP always sided with the nation’s top military brass?

Well, that was then, and this is now. The Republican Party is now invested to the political hilt in opposing anything President Obama wants — even if the national security establishment also wants it. Nothing is more important to the GOP than assuring that Obama fails. Nothing.

The current prime example of this obstructionist mindset is Republican opposition to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia. The conservative extremists just can’t bring themselves to approve of any such deal if it’s signed by a Democratic president, especially this Democratic president.

Never mind that the treaty has been endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

And never mind that Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, SAID just yesterday that approval of the treaty “is absolutely critical” to national security.

And never mind that 73 percent of Americans want the Senate to ratify the treaty, as we see HERE.

And never mind that Republican obstruction of the treaty serves the interests of the world’s nuclear wannabes, including Iran, as is argued HERE.

And never mind that stalling the treaty until the new Congress convenes “doesn’t make sense,” as is argued HERE.

And never mind that Senate failure to ratify the treaty  would “give Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin one more reason to vilify the West,” as is argued HERE.

And never mind that without the treaty, America has no way to physically monitor Russia’s nuclear forces.

None of that matters to the Republican Obamaphobes. To them, nothing is more important than obstruction of anything the president wants.

UPDATE: On an issue not completely unrelated to the foregoing, Steve Benen ADDRESSES the question of whether Republicans are bent on making sure that the economy doesn’t improve much on Obama’s watch.

Share:

4 Comments

  1. My, my! Steven Young apparently is an example of the more-patriotic-than-thou variety of wingnuts. Guys like that think they’re the only people who love this country. They’re the ones who were most enthusiastic about the stupid military adventurism of the chicken-hawk neocons in the Bush administration, and they can’t deal with the fact that the majority of Americans eventually turned against those disastrous schemes.

    And now that the GOP is turning against the national security establishment with regard to the New START Treaty, the Steven Youngs resort to their usual Obamaphobic rhetoric to justify such irresponsible obstructionism.

    And they pretend to be patriots?

  2. The majority of Americans turned against those disastrous schemesN Does that include President Obama and the war in Afghanistan?

  3. The START treaty does not make us safer and does not threaten national security. They used the national security argument as a reason to pass healthcare. Soon they will say it is for the children.

  4. DingDong: With every succeeding comment you offer here, it’s becoming increasingly apparent how you got your nickname.

    You dismiss the START Treaty as irrelevant to national security despite the fact that the treaty has been endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces — and despite the fact that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says Senate ratification of the treaty “is absolutely critical” to national security.

    Of course, you offer no explanation of your position on this matter.

    DingDong indeed! That’s exactly what you are.

Leave a Reply

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

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>