Obama Might Pull a Bush-Lite on START, Righties Go Ballistic

Thank goodness for Jake Tapper for implying that there are new precedents and earth shattering consequences if President Obama temporarily bypasses new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty(START)  treaty confirmation by the Senate, US-Russian Arms Negotiators “Under the Gun,” Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification

With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.

Bush pushed through an agreement with Russia on reduction of civilian nuclear power with the assertion that such a deal was already covered by section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act and would become law unless Congress specially passed legislation to block the new agreement. It a post typical of the substance of the far Right’s reaction to the Obama’s administration efforts to firm up START agreement before the old one expires The Astute Bloggers, writes The Kenyan in Moscow

As part and parcel of his Gramscian leftist agenda, the Obamessiah is preparing to surrender to the rump of the Soviet Union. He is hell bent on weakening America, knowing that when the bastion of freedom falters, leftist tyranny can spread unchecked throughout the world.

…Tell me why a President who wants to give up America’s military superiority over a dangerous, adventurous tyrant is not guilty of treason.

He knows it is treason.

And that is why, as usual, he is relying on extra-Constitutional actions and his personal authority as glamour boy of the media in order to do it.

It is high time that the CIA reveal the documentary proof that he was, as his relatives insisted all along, born in Kenya and hence ineligible for the Presidency.

I searched for the post in which this expert on arms control, birth certificates and executive powers in regards to Bush ramming through his civilian nuclear power reduction agreement or Bush’s claiming that his Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq – a treaty by any name – did not require Congressional approval (see U.S. Constitution Article II, section 2). The Obama administration’s claim that it can have an executive agreement with the Russian government to extend the original START until an almost guaranteed Senate approval seems like yet another gray area then Bush’s clearly unconstitutional SOFA agreement. Who was or who were those raging liberals that pledged to reduce the number of deployed nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. That was George W. Bush. That would be “to give up America’s military superiority” and thus “treason” by the Right’s definition. While Bush did begin to renegotiate a new START, like the economy and a few other pressing problems that required something resembling genuine leadership, the Bushies ended up dumping that problem in the new president’s lap.

Despite differences with the Russians on the scope of a START follow-up, there is no difference of opinion on the objective, Rood(undersecretary of state for arms control and international security for the Bush administration) said: “Both sides were very clear that we want to reach an agreement on a successor . . . before the expiration of the START treaty.” He added that he expects to have additional talks before the Bush administration departs “so that we hand this off to the next administration in hopefully the best shape that we can.”

Another legacy of the Bush administration who for eight years acted like a group of rabid juvenile bulls in china shop, leaving their mess for the adults to clean up. The basic START was not a problem for Bush or Obama, not surprisingly considering Obama’s centrist tendencies verification, mounting non-nuclear warheads on intercontinental missiles and at US plans for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic continues to be sticking points.

Who was that treasonous librul that rammed through a special NATO status for Russia as the NATO-Russia Council – President Dubya speech,

THE PRESIDENT: Secretary General, thank you for your leadership. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your grand hospitality. You’ve been a great host. And I want to welcome our friend, President Vladimir Putin, to this table, and all my NATO colleagues.
Today marks an historic achievement for a great alliance and a great European nation. Two former foes are now joined as partners, overcoming 50 years of division and a decade of uncertainty. And this partnership takes us closer to an even larger goal: a Europe that is whole, free and at peace for the first time in history.

NATO was born over a half a century ago as an alliance committed to defending democracy and advancing freedom. Today, we renew our commitment to these important goals. And as we reach out to a new Russia, that is building freedom in its own land and is already joining us in defending freedom against a common enemy, we do so in the spirit of peace and friendship.

While the U.S. and Russia went through a cooling of relations after the Russia-Georgia-South Ossetia incident, Obama, like Bush is hoping to continue Russian cooperation on terror issues emanating from Afghanistan. One of the things Obama has already accomplished is using a supply route for lethal weaponry through Russia for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. That does not quite line up with the looney narrative being written at the rightie blogs or the comments section at Jake Tapper’s story, but why let the truth get in the way of rightwing spin. At the very worse, the only valid criticism of Obama’s negotiation’s with Russia and the possibility of stretching executive powers, is that he is acting too much like that object of so much Republican idolatry, G.W. Bush.

Black and White flower wallpaper

Palin and her sycophant defender’s insistence that the broadcast and big print media are her mortal enemies seems overwrought and too sweeping at best. Palin’s Parting Shot

But perhaps the explanation for this lies in the final part of one of Palin’s statements: that “Washington and the media” cannot understand her decision because “it’s about country.” In other words, for the past nine months, Palin has avoided difficult questions, preferring Runner’s World to another Katie Couric interview; she has dragged her family into the spotlight when it suited her (baby Trig was in Runner’s World, too) and grown angry when the spotlight became too strong; she has eschewed reason and logic (not to mention spelling and grammar), yet reacted in horror when her critics were unreasonable and illogical in response. Then, after all that, she smugly asserts the right to decide who is a patriot and who is not. It’s not about “country,” in other words, it’s about hypocrisy. And Sarah Palin is full of it.

Applebaum takes up for Palin for what she sees as some cheap shots by a few bloggers. There are only a handful of A-list bloggers and while the snark has run fast and deep, what does it say about Palin’s character that she cannot take a little snark from a hand full of bloggers, especially in light of Palins’ criticism of then Senator Clinton, 2008 clip of Sarah Palin saying that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t complain about media coverage