• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The New Myths of New START

    What do Senators Jon Kyl (R–AZ), Scott Brown (R–MA), and George Voinovich (R-OH) all have in common? One Senator is from a blue state, one from a red state, and the other is retiring from office all together. But last week each of them told the White House that, despite their belief in the need for a nuclear treaty with Russia, this lame duck is not the right time to vote on President Barack Obama’s New START.

    Faced with these setbacks, the Obama Administration has gone into campaign mode, throwing out any argument they can think of to browbeat Senators into voting on the treaty now. Their favorite talking point is that none other than President Ronald Reagan himself would have supported this treaty. The President invoked Reagan’s name three times at a White House event last Thursday. And this Saturday he mentioned Reagan’s name five times in his weekly radio address. The problem is that Reagan would never have signed on to President Obama’s New START.

    While President Reagan did negotiate and sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, that does not mean he would have signed any agreement that reduced U.S. nuclear weapons. As Heritage Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes notes, Reagan would never sacrifice our missile defense capabilities for treaty concessions: “Why did Ronald Reagan walk away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons if only we gave up the Strategic Defense Initiative? Why did Reagan not take him up on that offer? The reason is that Reagan believed strategic defenses were the essential ingredient in disarmament—the exact opposite of what Gorbachev’s vision was then and President Obama’s vision is today.”

    And President Obama’s New START contains at least five sections that limit missile defense, including: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol, and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.

    Claims that Reagan would have supported New START are not the only myths emanating from the White House. Other false claims include:

    (1) Without New START, terrorists would get nukes: There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are Russia’s 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!

    (2) Without New START, Israel’s security would be compromised: In their zeal to see the treaty passed as soon as possible, some proponents have proclaimed that New START is “a Jewish issue.” New START is only marginally relevant to Moscow’s policy in the Middle East. And not every foreign and national security issue is a “Jewish issue” because it has some tangential connection to Iran. New START should be considered on its merits.

    (3) Without New START, our nuclear arsenal would not be modernized: By threatening to withhold funding unless the treaty is ratified, the White House would be playing crass politics with national security. If funds are needed for the most vital and sensitive military capability in the military’s arsenal, they should never be held hostage to a political deal. To bargain with the nation’s security is the antithesis of the appropriate behavior of a commander-in-chief. It would also demonstrate the lack of the President’s real commitment to his responsibility as the steward of America’s nuclear arsenal. Conditioning funding for nuclear program on New START is playing politics with our national security. If the dollars are needed, they should be provided without conditions—period.

    (4) Without New START, we can’t verify Russia’s arsenal: The Administration and proponents of the treaty are also arguing for a quick “lame duck” ratification by saying that the U.S. is in danger without New START, because without a verification regime it lacks insight into Russia’s nuclear forces. This is rather amazing, considering that Administration officials have insisted that Russia is not a threat. Moreover, the lack of verification measures, supporters of the treaty argue, is increasing instability and uncertainty between the two major nuclear powers. Yet this is the result of the Administration’s own actions. The White House did not move to take advantage of a five-year extension clause under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At the time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon.

    (5) Without New START’s inspections, satellites would be diverted from other missions: The New START inspections are not nearly valuable enough to alter our satellite needs. Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, told The Washington Times: “Our overall satellite capability is not what it used to be and not what it ought to be. Eighteen spot inspections a year is not going to fill the gap left by inadequate NTM capabilities. If we want better coverage of Russia’s strategic threats, we are going to have to launch more satellites.”

    In his weekly address this Saturday, President Obama said about New START: “Some have asked whether it will limit our missile defense—it will not.” Forgive us for not taking this President at his word. This is the same President who said Americans could keep their doctor under Obamacare, the same President who promised a net spending cut, and the same President who promised that his economic stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. The Senate considered the original START for nearly a year.  The Obama Administration took more than 12 months to negotiate New START but has sought approval from the Senate in less than five. And they still have not released the negotiating record. Just like Obamacare, they want votes without legislators knowing what they are voting for. If the case for New START is as strong as the Obama administration claims it is, than the White House should act like it and stop pushing for a lame duck vote.

    Quick Hits:

    • With costly Obamacare mandates approaching, nearly half a dozen states, including Washington, Texas, and South Carolina, are now considering dropping out of Medicaid.
    • After six years, $3 billion in taxpayer money, and zero medical breakthroughs, the California embryonic stem cell research institute is asking for another $3 billion in taxpayer funds.
    • China has evolved virtually overnight from a coal exporter to one of the world’s leading purchasers.
    • The Federal Communications Commission is considering a gift for the phone and cable industry: net neutrality regulations three days before Christmas.
    • United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted last week that global warming climate policy is really all about wealth redistribution.
    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    47 Responses to Morning Bell: The New Myths of New START

    1. Jeanne Stotler says:

      Seems BHO wants to weaken our defenses. There is no guarantee that Russia or any other country would not hide weapons from inspectors, that is except us. America is becoming like the child who believes in fairies and elves or like the ostrich with his head in the sand, we cannot trust countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and even China. Definetely we cannot trust the communist countries in So. amer. BHO is not looking out for the good of the USA.

    2. William Downey, JD L says:

      Scrooge had Marley and Obama will have Regan. START is bad policy and another sign that this administration is committed to reducing U. S. capabilities to respond to threats not only to our national interests but to the security of our allies which we have guaranteed through treaties.

    3. Nancy says:

      As always when Obama's lips move the OPPOSITE it true. As is his policy, you are NOT supposed to KNOW what he is ram rodding through. It's the same tactic he used to push through health care. It makes one wonder if Nancy Pelosi will pop up and state, "lets pass it so we can all see what's in it…" Nancy, we've had enough of your lies. If Obama wants this passed, without a doubt, it is WRONG for America.

    4. Marilyn - Arizona says:

      I trust nothing that comes out of this administration – and this treaty with Russia is no different.

    5. Blair Franconia, NH says:


    6. JC, Tooele UT says:

      Experience should have, by now, taught us that if Obama says it needs to be passed NOW, it's going to be a complete disaster for this country.

    7. Daniel Hollywood Chi says:

      President Obama is only interested in weakening our Defensive and offensive capabilities, we wants to make us equal or lesser on the World stage. So far he has done a good job of doing this with his aplogogy tour. In his eyes we are an evil Country that has to be put in its place. Everything he has done in colusion with Mr Reid and Ms. Pelosi shows that they cannot stand to have their bills scutinized by the legislators or the American public, this is why he took such a shellacking in the mid-term elections, and the longer he does this the less chance he will have of being re-elected, Thank God.

    8. Will S., Illinois says:

      Not to be crude, but New START's restrictions on missile defense are frankly minimal and not worth worrying about. I will address each restriction in order:

      1) There is a linkage between offensive and defensive weapons, to assert otherwise is to deny reality. And, the START is lucky to the U,S because US missile defense programs are about to enter into an entirely new phase, one which would actually put Russia's missile forces actually on the back foot and make the current missile defense system seem expensive and antiquated.

      For example, right now the best way the US has to shoot down ICBMs is to build a massive rocket and try and go after the cloud of MIRVs and decoys in the middle of space. Wouldn't it be easier to shoot down the missiles as they are launching? There are continuing efforts to build and expand something called NCADE, essentially an air launched missile interceptor. It will probably be carried on stealthy drones and placed above missile launching areas; there the air launched interceptors can shoot down missiles as they're launching, that is a vastly simpler task compared to what GBI interceptors do.

      2. The second restriction, transforming offensive silos to defensive silos and vise versa seems, to me, to be rather useless. What would you put in those silos? The GBI is better placed on the coast, so it can hit targets that are reaching their apogee over the ocean, why would you put it in the middle of the US, unless you wanted to make its job difficult? And, the US current terminal defense weapon, the THAAD, is based on a truck. There's no reason to put that in a silo.

      This restriction seems like a commonsense rule, so that both sides can be certain where weapons of both types are. We wouldn't want the Russians building missile defense silos across the Bering Strait, then in a crisis period switching the missile defense silos into missile offense silos. (And actually, we have a much better chance of doing that with our GBI silos in Alaska)

      3. Of course there will be provisions on the missiles used in missile tests. If we build a missile target that has an ICBM stages in it, we have more or less built an ICBM; that cannot be denied by a rational person. What this clause aims to do is prevent one side from building a number of missile targets which could be instantly switched over to actual missiles, and then deployed equally rapidly. Under the proposed system, both sides should be able to detect if the other side is rapidly building new ICBMs. By limiting the types of missile interceptors, the treaty limits the ability of both sides to achieve a very large 'break-out' capability.

      4. Yes, and your point is? This section is needed because weapon delivery systems change and the treaty should be flexible enough to adapt. And, as I mentioned earlier, the US military is moving towards a radically more advanced and distributed missile defense architecture, one which actually could stop the Russian 2nd strike capability. There should be negotiations about that.

      5. The Russians can get missile defense telemetry, we can get Russian missile telemetry. I think that's a wash. Over the past two decades, the telemetry clause has been mainly focused on the Russians, as they were building new missiles while we kept using the Minuteman (as I'm sure you know). The Russian's, very logically, probably asked for that telemetry data to be made either more fair or eliminated altogether.

      What seems to be missing from the criticisms of START is a recognition of the purpose of nuclear weapons treaties. They are not, as the President may assert, a way of bringing the world closer to zero. Instead, the treaties serve the purpose of lessening the risk of a disaster. You lessen that risk by ensuring that both sides are unable to destroy the other with a 'first strike.' Were the US to not sign START, then plow ahead with the present missile defense plans, Russia would, with a legitimate reason, fear a day when it does not have a second strike capability against the US.

      And, what will Russia do then? Maybe it would become even more reliant on a 'launch on warning' policy; one which will become even more tense with the deployment of US stealthy UAV's with missile interceptors. Or Russia could reverse the trends of the past decades and switch to a purely 'counter-value' strategy; as it knows it cannot rely on getting more than a fraction of its missiles through, it will aim those missiles at the most painful targets to the US.

      Even more fundamental than the scare of increased nuclear weapons (which is not illegitimate, the Russian military appears to be shifting towards a more nuclear based military as it runs out of money) is the issue of trust. If the US cannot enter into a treaty, which does very little in terms of limiting nuclear weapons, because of specious concerns about missile defenses, what country would trust us on anything of lessor importance? Why would Russia enter into negotiations about its tactical nuclear arms when we won't sign a treaty, because it might constrain us or, worse of all, it might give the President some sort of victory? It would be the height of irresponsibility to render the US unable to enter into any negotiations if political maneuvering halted this treaty.

      1,500 nuclear arms, plus the thousands more in reserve, seem to be far and above enough for any military scenario short of Armageddon. I defy anyone to argue that the US will need 700 more nuclear weapons. What targets would we be giving up? Why are those 700 crucial?

      And finally, the question about waiting for the new Senate. While in principle, this may be a good idea, the fact is the new Senate, if given advise like this, will be rather ignorant and incapable of assessing the START treaty on its merit. The Cold Warriors are dying off, and we see the lack of foreign policy expertise everyday in both parties in the Senate. If you could assure that the new Senate wouldn't grandstand over START, then maybe you could argue that delaying a month or two won't matter. But, when the incoming democratic Senator from W.Va. says he's waiting for the military commanders on the ground comments on START (presumably he wants some missile launching officer to come in and say some words), you know that this class probably isn't up to the challenge.

      So we have a choice, continue this pathetic charade of opposing START, or pass the treaty with the requisite signing statements (1. Modernization, 2. No constraint on missile defenses, 3. Will include rail-mobile ICBMs). You know the opponents of START have no grounds left, when even Poland and Hungary urge the passing of the treaty. This has been an embarrassment to the Republican party, I hope, for the good of the Party, that this treaty is passed.

    9. JERRY DONLAY, HAYS K says:

      With this President, "Trust but Verify", is applicable to he and his minions. I don't believe any sane person would put his neck on the block for this guy anymore. The ones would are not to be trusted.

    10. Edward P. Woolley,Cl says:

      I can now see our beloved President Ronald Reagan, smiling and saying to president obama"there you go again."

    11. toledofan says:

      I think that anytime you negoitiate by giving away your strength and position, you're stuck with the short straw. How can anyone of us trust anything Obama says or wasn't he the one that said the missle shield in Poland was a bad idea because it would have made the Russians mad? I guess the real issue is that this administration seems hellbent on bringing America to it's knees, so, why would he do anything differently to protest us?

    12. Edward P.Woolley,Cle says:

      I can now see our beloved President Ronald W. Reagan,smiling and saying to president Obama "there you go again".

    13. Elizabeth A. Fox says:

      As a concerned citizen, I have watched and listened to many discussions on this treaty and would like to know about the disarming of American Citizens. So much has been made of this in news alerts to many of us. Just what would this treaty do to our 2nd. Amendment rights? Also, according to the Bible, any government signing on to this treaty will be doomed. Ezekiel 38 and 39 make this very clear. I know I am just a crazy Montanian clinging to my guns and Bible, but at this point it seems it is all I have left. LOL Thank you for your time and all that you do.

    14. SERVative says:

      WWRD(What would Ronaldo Maximus do?)

      Well, unlike Mr. "can't we just all get along" (BHO),

      'Ol Ron would say "we have peace through strength", and "trust, but verify".

      BHO just likes being liked. SAD and DANGEROUS!

    15. Juanita Hamblin, Cre says:

      We need to remind people that Nikita Krushev said "We will take over your country without firing a shot". That mindset still exists to this day. We are only safe if we are strong. Why does our governmet not recognize this?

    16. Carl Nieman, Crowley says:

      Does this President even know how to tell the truth. It seems to be so far that the only thing he says that is truthful is his name. Beyond him saying I am President Obama, from there forward is one lie after another. Please tell me that every Republican in Washington knows all the facts that are contained in the article! Please Please Please do everything that Heritage can do to be sure that there is not a single Republican in Washington that is stupid enough to not know these facts and more about this President's proposal. I absolutely cannot believe that any President of the United States would do so much to destroy the United States. THESE ACTIONS AND THIS TREATY BORDER ON TREASON!

    17. Russell,. Spring Tex says:

      It is amazing that the ignorance of this president believing that we will go along with him on anything he promotes. It’s like talking to that infamous car salesman stereo type that keeps trying to sell you on that one car that’s overprice and under performs and is not what you want. Then thinks by sell me undercoating at a discount will seal the deal… I mean wow! What is this guy thinking? He doesn’t live in a bubble as he recently said, he lives on Bizarre”O” world so far disconnected from reality he dangerous.

      This topped with allegations of depression him being mentally unstable to continue the presidency, forcing his administration to enact the 25th amendment, removing him from office. My question is should we fear this administration oh! Yeah!

    18. Russell,. Spring Tex says:

      It is amazing that the ignorance of this president believing that we will go along with him on anything he promotes. It’s like talking to that infamous car salesman stereo type that keeps trying to sell you on that one car that’s overprice and under performs and is not what you want. Then thinks by sell me undercoating at a discount will seal the deal… I mean wow! What is this guy thinking? He doesn’t live in a bubble as he recently said, he lives on Bizarre”O” world so far disconnected from reality he dangerous.

      This topped with allegations of depression him being mentally unstable to continue the presidency, forcing his administration to enact the 25th amendment, removing him from office. My question is should we fear this administration ? oh! Yeah!

    19. Anton, Graham, WA says:

      Did you hear that! Sounded like the WH was burping again. Must be all the hot air they've been filling themselves with. Oh well…what else do we expect…its not as if he has anyone else's interest here but his own. Until we hear a real, viable sound coming from Obama and company, we should just ignore them (as hard as that might be). His next tactic will be to throw a tantrum for not getting his way. So…Tea-Partiiers, please be patient and vigilant…and, remember, it doesn't matter if he comes around to our way of thinking, either, because we should still press our advantage…no matter what! @our Congressional leaders: don't let yourselves be isolated and singled out…stay grouped together…to keep the predators at bay till the new Congress can convene! ^_^

    20. Tom Florida says:

      The President of the United States primary mission is to protect the USA and its citizens and borders. This resident of the White House has never done the duties of the President of the United States as ordered by the US Constitution correctly. We can not allow him to stop our missile defenses at all. We now have to face a nuclear China, who owns a great deal of our nations debt and a great deal of the surrounding territory of the Americas.

      The communists and moslems can not dictate US policy any longer; through this resident of the White House

    21. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      The HF is all kind of WORRIED,

      that if when START gets signed

      there will be MORE PEACE.

      And there is NO PROFIT IN PEACE.

    22. E.P.Woolley,Cleburne says:

      I can now hear our beloved President RONALND WILSON REAGAN exclaim to president Obama"there you go again".

    23. Edward Kimble, 46725 says:

      Like so many of Obama's policies, instead of listening to the cogent whimsy of experts who have experience in this area and with the psychology of the Russian nation, instead he has again gone with the secret, fog bound errant instincts of the ivy league socialist pseudo-geniuses. A third approach, and one often taken by previous administrations was to simply look at worst case scenarios, what if everything goes wrong, what would be the best thing for both sides? The hidden clauses in these treaties cause reduction in defense related jobs and capabilities (by destroying buildings and machinery). Wouldn't it be nice if none of those reductions were fatal to our nation or world? There are no asteroids headed for earth or new technologies that might be discovered by the Jihadists, right? Right?

    24. Mike Gabel. Westfiel says:

      The harsh reality is that Obama will continue to ignore the fact that he and his policies were repudiated on November 2nd. Further, our president's inability and/or unwillingness to speak the truth, is contemptible.

      While Obama will continue to advocate for his misguided policies, our elected representatives should use this repudiation and disingenuousness as a guide, for both the near term (lame duck session) and the next two years.

    25. gary bryson Fallbroo says:

      This President isn't Qaulified to make any decisions like this. Let's just let him start his vacation today. and go back to giving speeches to the kids that go to school that will never have a real job___GB

    26. B. Hall Syosset N.Y. says:

      What did you expect from someone who wants to fundamentally change the USA.

    27. Bernard P. Giroux says:

      President Reagan believed in the three-legged concept of defense: land, sea and air. His philosophy was that you cannot knock out all three at any one time. And, he was correct. The most potent of our offensive weapons reside in the hulls of the nuclear ballistic missile submarines, whose movements and locations are always top secret. What no one has yet said, is that some of the older boomers could be converted to anti-missile platforms, and once again, no one would ever know where they were. Anyone who thinks that an anti-missile force is not necessary has not been through any war, nor have they ever seen what I have, which is the mess in Europe in 1951, only six years after the end of WWII. Whether the president or his minions think so or not, no matter what their philosophy is, the United States cannot give up its position as the number one military power in the world. If we do, we are lost.

    28. Dan MO says:

      (1) The offense-defense linkage in the preamble places missile defense (MD) squarely within the context of the New START limitations. Russia has specifically stated "any qualitative or quantitative buildup" in US MD capabilities would justify its action to withdraw from the treaty. That constitutes political blackmail.

      (2) Coastal emplacements for MD interceptors are not sacrosanct. Russian nuclear-tipped MD interceptors are located around Moscow, not the coast, thus demonstrating a point defense. During the 1970's, the US briefly deployed similar interceptors around Grand Forks, ND. Why? To defend our ICBMs against a counterforce first strike, thus bolstering deterrence by assuring Russia our retaliatory capability would remain massive.

      More importantly, the Article V restrictions you cite are not the only way in which MD can be limited. Heritage has consistently and accurately pointed out that the treaty creates a Bilateral Consultative Commission to which it expressly defers broad authority to make agreements, including those that could limit MD. The BCC's authority is far broader than the START treaty's Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission, which was established only to resolve discrepancies in implementation (many of which were never resolved before START expired).

      (3) Under your rationale, any rocket that flys over 5500km (the treaty's range prerequisite for an ICBM) has an offensive potential, and thus should be limited. What about space launch vehicles? You plan to limit those as ICBMs, too?

      What you miss in your analysis is that ICBMs are "weapon delivery vehicles." MD targets are not weapon delivery vehicles.

      (4) I guess you missed the memo: The monitoring station at the Votkinsk Production Facility, established under the preceding START treaty, which Obama elected not to pursue extending (even on a bilateral basis), has been cut from the New START Treaty. US monitors have come home and will NOT be allowed to return. So much for a stronger verification regime on that count, huh?

      The verification regime under the New START is far less credible than under START. When queried about the weak verification regime, General Chilton (Commander of Strategic Command) testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Russian cheating would be "militarily insignificant." Sen McCain, to his credit, asked, "Then why do we need a treaty?"

      Since then, the administration can only blurt out, "Transparency!" However, the administration has no response for the cognitive dissonnance of their position. If cheating doesn't matter, what is the strategic imperative to transparency?

      Moreover, if the administration is so cavalier about cheating, and they have negotiated a much weaker verification regime, how can we be sure the alleged "transparency" measures don't obscure the truth and provide a misleading picture of Russian forces? How can we know under this treaty?

      (5) Under START, telemetry data was exchanged for ALL flight tests of ICBMs and SLBMs. Under New START, telemetry will only be provided on "up to" 5 launches, as decided by the Party conducting the test. In other words, the US will no longer receive telemetry on new Russian systems. Period.

      As for the telemetry that is volunteered, it will no longer contain any information from the front section of the missile — where the nuclear warheads are actually carried. We will not receive any information on throw weight, payload, release commands.

      And you wish to trade telemetry on interceptor missiles in exchange for information on Russian offensive weapons? You would have the US give up information on interceptor missiles — that are NOT subject to the treaty — in exchange for data we could have received had START been extended.

      Good trade, Einstein.

      Enough said.

    29. Roy Callahan says:

      Well written, Well said. Liar Liar Obama's pants are on fire.

    30. John Blaikie, Center says:

      Why is it so hard for this Administration and other liberal "elites" to understand that weakness, either real or perceived, is a sure recipe for disaster?

    31. Dan MO says:

      Clarification: My comment (above) is a response to those made by "Will S. Illinois."

    32. Ben C. Ann Arbor, MI says:

      I worry not about Russia. I worry about China. N. Korea is of concern but does not have the resources to build a huge military – China has the resources and is doing the same. People like Ken J look only to the end of their noses and do not look into the future. China has many of our military secrets thanks to the University of Michigan's policies with China. U of M President Mary Sue Coleman seems to prefer Chinese engineering students over US students and the Chinese students, many of whom are in the Chinese military, return home with our military secrets. We financially crippled the USSR and the net effect is that "the Wall" came down in East Germany ending the "Cold War.". China owns a substainal amouth of our debt and obviously we can't do the same as we did with the USSR. I wonder what deals Obama is doing with China while he plays the START card to distract us from the real issues. Ken J – its not about "profits" – its about our safety.

    33. Sue Marie, Detroit says:

      Obama is not naive about the Russians. Obama is out to destroy The American Way of life.

    34. Will S., Illinois says:

      Dan, I'll make my reply quick, because I don't have time to comment on everything.

      Lets just address the US Sprint interceptors and the Russian ones around Moscow. They are very fast rockets with nuclear warheads; think the game missile defense and you have roughly what those interceptors are.

      There's a reason why they are placed near their defended area, and that's because they can't defend much beyond the nearby area.

      Note, they have little to nothing in common with today's GBI or even the THAAD. That comparison is ridiculous and you should, if you knew about the topic, be able to recognize that.



    36. Pat Cody, Huntersvil says:

      Before the US signs any treaty with Russia Congress needs to be completely sure of their grounds and should not touch this during a lame duck session. I believe we have given away too much to Russia already during President Obama's watch.

    37. Walt Moore says:

      Thank for being ahead of the entire public news media on the specifics of the new START. We are better off without this no matter the timing. The current administration will continue their attempts to subvert the US position as a sovereign nation. It is clear they know what to attack. Let the impeachment begin.

    38. Clearhead says:

      JARVIS !! You're back. It was SOOOO nice while you were on your sabbatical. Your reference to the foolish notion that there is no profit in peace causes us to realize that 'PROFIT' seems to be the god of 'progressives' while PEACE is the goal of Americans. Thanks for your "insight".

    39. dr dan stuart says:

      1. Obama never promised that his policies would keep unemployment under 8 %. That was said by ONE of his staff. Employment was over 8 % when the bill was passed and above 8.5% before the plan was implemented

      2. As an MD, please inform me how the new health laws will force people to change doctors.

      3. Global climate change is real. This year will be the first or second hottest ever recorded. The last decade was the warmest ever.

    40. Dave, Raleigh NC says:

      I don't really care if we have a giant pile of ICBM's pointed all at Moscow. You just simply don't lower your defenses. Obama is proving to be a weak cowardly man, and it threatening this country's very existence with these kinds of policies.

      Obama… stop trying to place nice with the bullies in the school yard. Don't be a bully, but make sure you're the guy who can kick the bully's butt.

    41. Pingback: Tuesday Morning Quick Hits | The Lonely Conservative

    42. Pingback: 33 Minutes

    43. Edgar Palser says:

      I've heard it said and believe it to be so, "Never pay attention to what this President says, review what he has done. The two never are the same." He has proven himself to be dishonest and deceptive. One should review the details of New START the same way.

    44. Crystal Fenton Long says:

      This is a man who should have never been President, let alone be in command of handling foreign or domestic policy! It's pretty frightening when you think about having a House that will be greatly divided run by a "Thin-skinned" President that will be under such great stress, that I seriously wonder if he will hold up mentally! Let alone make any good decisions about running this country! We are in for a very bad two years if this man remains in office!

    45. Barry Schmidt says:

      Jarvis went off his medication…….again!

    46. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      Obama wanted the USA to join the European Union, and now that is bankrupt with Ireland, Spain and Greece, failing. Bad advice.

      Obama wants the USA to cut back on our Nuclear Missiles, and Russia and China just announce that they will no longer be using the U.S. Dollar as a Monetary basis.

      North Korea has blatently attacked South Korea, and the path is now clear between North Korea and Iran, with all points inbetween having Nuclear Missiles, and the capacity to use them, even if from frieghters. More bad advice.

      Seems as if Mr. Obama has nothing for the American Citizen but bad advice.

    47. Pingback: Dare call it sabotage? | political madness

    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.