• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Clinton's New START Misstatements

    In her testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging the Senate to consent to the ratification of the April 8th Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated the following:

    Now, some may argue that we don’t need the new START treaty. But the choice before us is between this treaty and no treaty governing our nuclear security relationship with Russia, between this treaty and no agreed verification mechanisms on Russia’s strategic nuclear forces, between this treaty and no legal obligation for Russia to maintain its strategic nuclear forces below an agreed level. And as Secretary Gates has pointed out, every previous president who faced this choice has found that the United States is better off with a treaty than without one, and the United States Senate has always agreed. The 2002 Moscow Treaty was approved by a vote of 95 to nothing. The 1991 START treaty was approved by 93 to 6.

    In these areas, Secretary Clinton’s testimony is factually incorrect on both counts. First, the Senate’s choice is not between this treaty or no treaty. The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Strategic Offensive Reductions of May 24, 2002 (Moscow Treaty) is in force today and will remain in force if New START is not ratified, according to its terms, until the end of calendar 2012.

    Second, there has not been an unbroken record of Senate support for bilateral strategic nuclear arms control treaties with the Soviet Union or Russia. The Senate’s support for the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II) of June 18, 1979 was so tepid that President Carter, on January 3, 1980, asked it to defer consideration.

    Above all, the Senate needs to keep in mind the exceedingly low standards that Secretary Clinton believes it should use to judge the merits of New START. The standard she would have the Senate apply is whether New START is better than nothing. It certainly appears that this is the low standard that the Obama Administration observed in the negotiating process because it has produced a weak treaty. Now, it is asserting that the Senate has no choice but to support it. The Obama Administration would have found that obtaining Senate consent is easier if it had set high standards in the negotiations and not produced such a weak treaty.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    15 Responses to Clinton's New START Misstatements

    1. Alex Zappavigna, Por says:

      Whenever I attempt to click on Share This, a small box appears with numerous other sites and prevents me from clicking on Share This. Any solution?

    2. Tim AZ says:

      This would be like a doctor saying you have cancer. We are only going to remove 1/4 of the tumor. After all that's better then doing nothing isn't it? This is what Obamadon'tcare health care would be like if it were allowed to be implemented.

    3. Phil says:

      SORT/ Moscow goes into effect and expires December 31, 2012, but lacks any verification measures. So, if there is no new treaty, then there will be no means to effectively verify the Russian nuclear arsenal, and we all know the importance of verification. Reagan said it many times, "Trust, but verify." Without START, there is no verifying.

      Second, it is not a bad treaty, not a great one either. It is a modest treaty that does lower the total number of warheads, from 2,200 to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 deployed. It could have gone further, but it did not. It still allows for U.S. regional missile defenses, still allows for the triad and still allows for future U.S. modernization (erLEP, LEP).

    4. MJF, CT says:

      Don't these people remember the Cold War? We had treaties then with Russia and they didn't mean a thing! Russia still wanted "to bury us" and we never trusted each other back then. What has changed? The USSR dissolved but the factions ruling Russia are still the same – you cannot negotiate with Communists or terrorists and Russia is still, BOTH!

    5. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      Just more lies and deception from the Obama adminstration lackeys. We are

      talking about a Clinton here. Does anyone expect accurate statement from a person that spent 8 years of covering her husband's lies, that he was impeached for, and her lies to the Grand Jury with "I don't recall" B.S. Just more of the

      Obama world of politics.

    6. Greg B. Vail, AZ says:

      Hillary’s statement is typical of liberal Democrats. They try to make the facts fit what it is that they want them to be rather than what they actually are. Dems still live in a world that does not realize how today’s information sources allow nearly any one to check stated figures and “the facts”. Liying can o longer be as esaily done as when her husband was in office.

    7. Jim - USA says:

      Whatever Happened to logic and common sense? I can believe that chem-trails are dumbing America down. Anyone who likes, or respects obama, clintons,

      pelosi, reid, basicly any progresseives, has lost most of their brain cells. These

      individuals lie constantly, and too many people eat it up. It's scary.

    8. JD, real world says:

      It's now only a question of can we survive until 2012

    9. Pingback: White House Pushes For Ratification Of The START Agreement « Read NEWS

    10. Pingback: Mexican President Wants to Disarm Americans | We Are Change

    11. Pingback: Mexican President Wants to Disarm Americans | Prison Planet Earth

    12. Pingback: Mexican President Wants to Disarm Americans « Truth USA

    13. Pingback: Mexican President Wants to Disarm Americans | DC LIES

    14. Pingback: 33 Minutes

    15. Everything is an emergency with this administration, as with the stimulus ,healthcare, etc.. The bills always have to be rushed to voting because of some critical and abstract , and conger-ed up reason. This ruse, has
      worked wonderfully well till present. We now have a Sec. of Defense going tits up to the Russians with a START Treaty, and on to our knee's to the United Nations with the Weapons Ban Treaty. The Traitors have taken the helm of the ship of state, and we fiddle as she heads for the rocks.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×