Sunday, April 11, 2010

Lieberman: Obama Won't Get Nukes Treaty Without Major Changes.

There really is nothing this snake could ever do which would surprise me, so low is the place he inhabits in my expectations.

Lieberman has let us know that he is now planning to vote against Obama's nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," the Connecticut Independent suggested that he himself would oppose ratification of the START II Treaty that Obama signed in Prague this past week, in part because, he reasoned, the language left America vulnerable to a nuclear Iran.

"I don't believe that there will be 67 votes to ratify the treaty unless the administration does two things," Lieberman said. "First: commit to modernize our nuclear stockpile, so as we have less nuclear weapons we know that they are capable if, God forbid, we need them. And secondly, to make absolutely clear that the statements by Russian president [Dmitry] Medvedev at the signing in program, that seemed to suggest that if we continue to build ballistic missile defense in Europe they may pull out of this treaty, is just not acceptable to us. We need that defense to protect our allies and ourselves from Iran."

So, he is going to demand that the US continue it's ridiculous star wars programme, the programme which many doubt will ever actually work.

And let's not forget, the deal still leaves both the US and Russia with 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons deployed and ready to fire, and to 700 deployed delivery systems (missiles and heavy bombers). How many times does Joe want to blow the planet up that he can argue that the US is somehow insufficiently covered on the nuclear bomb front?

The people of Connecticut have got to kick this creep out on his ass at the next election.

Click here for full article.


Steel Phoenix said...

Why didn't we just elect this guy as president? He would have less power and more accountability.

Kel said...

I loathe him, SP. He's an egotistical little shit who is revelling in his current position as a deal breaker/maker.

I just can't work out what he is actually FOR. He got elected to do WHAT exactly? To help WHOM?

I simply can't get how this guy was ever a Democrat...

After all, at the last election he campaigned for McCain. Why is he still in the Democratic caucus? What does he have to do to be thrown into the wilderness?