Jon Stewart's bit on the new nuclear treaty

Humor always you to cut to the truth of the issue in a way that being angry and serious all the time does not. Anger makes your bad ideas seem perfect.
 
Last edited:
Humor always you to cut to the truth of the issue in a way that being angry and serious all the time does not. Anger makes your bad ideas seem perfect.

Do you remember a few years ago when FauxNews tried to do their own Right leaning version of the Daily Show?

GOD it was horrible, all the "humor" on that show was anger based and it came off sounding spiteful.
 
I haven't seen anybody here running around saying that we were doomed because of this treaty. It may be that only the left watches Fox to "catch" them saying stupid things...
 
I haven't seen anybody here running around saying that we were doomed because of this treaty. It may be that only the left watches Fox to "catch" them saying stupid things...


C'mon man, I know you make the rounds on the rightwing blogs.

Your favorite vice presidential candidate, and half-term governor, weighed in on this....and proclaimed that not only was Obama inviting a nuclear attack on us, but that he probably wouldn't 't retaliate if we were hit:


PALIN: No administration in America's history would I think ever have considered such a step that we just found out that President Obama is supporting today.

You know that's kinda like getting out there on the playground, a bunch of kids ready to fight and one of the kids saying 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'"


She sounds like a nuclear policy expert to me.
 
Last edited:
C'mon man, I know you make the rounds on the rightwing blogs.

Your favorite vice presidential candidate, and half-term governor, weighed in on this....and proclaimed that not only was Obama inviting a nuclear attack on us, but that he probably wouldn't 't retaliate if we were hit:





She sounds like a nuclear policy expert to me.
Whose favorite VP Candidate? That is another that I think the left loves to follow around.

Since you are so sure, please link me up to the post of any "righty" here saying that this is the end of the world. Either that or admit that what I said was exactly that. Nobody here is saying it, because we don't think it is that big of a deal.
 
I haven't seen anybody here running around saying that we were doomed because of this treaty. It may be that only the left watches Fox to "catch" them saying stupid things...

The Daily Show employs TV watchers to sit and watch TV stations (including Fox) all day to pick up on these things. Pretty much every news show does the same thing. It's the only way to get clips like this.

What a sad job though...
 
The Daily Show employs TV watchers to sit and watch TV stations (including Fox) all day to pick up on these things. Pretty much every news show does the same thing. It's the only way to get clips like this.

What a sad job though...
I'm sure that Rush has people watch some left-leaners to gather stupid clips too. Although I think that probably half of Fox's viewership are these people...
 
Amazing that no media was slobbering all over this presidents success with nuclear arms reduction! not by 1/3 but by 2/3's

U.S., Russia Agree to Reduce Nuclear Arms by Two-Thirds
By Dana Milbank and Sharon LaFraniere
THE WASHINGTON POST -- Washington
The United States and Russia reached agreement Monday on a treaty cutting both nations’ nuclear arsenals by two-thirds, drafting a three-page pact intended to replace the last vestiges of the Cold War arms race with cooperation between the former adversaries.

The accord is to be signed in an official ceremony when President Bush visits Moscow for a summit meeting next week. It commits the countries to reduce nuclear arsenals to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads each by the end of 2012 -- codifying long-standing pledges by both sides to make wholesale cuts.

“This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War,” Bush said in brief remarks on the South Lawn of the White House Monday morning. “The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security and improved relations.”

The reaction was more somber in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin pronounced himself “satisfied” and his foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, acknowledged the treaty was not as comprehensive as Moscow sought. “It is a realistic document,” Ivanov said.

Analysts in both countries said the agreement essentially is a face-saving gesture for Putin, who insisted on a formal accord. Putin, eager to integrate his economy with the West and to give Russians a sense of national dignity that comes with a formal agreement with the United States, yielded to almost all of Bush’s demands.

The treaty marks a departure from past arms control pacts that, along with their side agreements, often filled volumes.

Honoring the Bush administration’s desire for future flexibility, it contains no requirement to destroy warheads that are taken out of service. It puts no prohibition on the U.S. plan to build a missile defense system. The pact’s expiration in 10 years allows either side to return to any level it desires, and before the 10-year expiration it allows the ability to pull out with 90 days’ notice.

In exchange, Bush granted one concession: having a treaty. The administration saw no need for a written agreement, and preferred any agreement not to take the form of a treaty requiring Senate ratification. Although the administration met Russia’s request, the president did not agree to anything he had not pledged to do unilaterally.

“As the president said, we believed it was not necessary to have a treaty because we are in a new phase of relations,” national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview on PBS’s “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” “But the president listened to his Russian partner.”

Senate Democrats and Republicans praised the agreement, and indications Monday were that it would face no significant obstacles to ratification.

http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N26/long_126.26w.html
 
Amazing that no media was slobbering all over this presidents success with nuclear arms reduction! not by 1/3 but by 2/3's

U.S., Russia Agree to Reduce Nuclear Arms by Two-Thirds
By Dana Milbank and Sharon LaFraniere
THE WASHINGTON POST -- Washington
The United States and Russia reached agreement Monday on a treaty cutting both nations’ nuclear arsenals by two-thirds, drafting a three-page pact intended to replace the last vestiges of the Cold War arms race with cooperation between the former adversaries.

The accord is to be signed in an official ceremony when President Bush visits Moscow for a summit meeting next week. It commits the countries to reduce nuclear arsenals to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads each by the end of 2012 -- codifying long-standing pledges by both sides to make wholesale cuts.

“This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War,” Bush said in brief remarks on the South Lawn of the White House Monday morning. “The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security and improved relations.”

The reaction was more somber in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin pronounced himself “satisfied” and his foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, acknowledged the treaty was not as comprehensive as Moscow sought. “It is a realistic document,” Ivanov said.

Analysts in both countries said the agreement essentially is a face-saving gesture for Putin, who insisted on a formal accord. Putin, eager to integrate his economy with the West and to give Russians a sense of national dignity that comes with a formal agreement with the United States, yielded to almost all of Bush’s demands.

The treaty marks a departure from past arms control pacts that, along with their side agreements, often filled volumes.

Honoring the Bush administration’s desire for future flexibility, it contains no requirement to destroy warheads that are taken out of service. It puts no prohibition on the U.S. plan to build a missile defense system. The pact’s expiration in 10 years allows either side to return to any level it desires, and before the 10-year expiration it allows the ability to pull out with 90 days’ notice.

In exchange, Bush granted one concession: having a treaty. The administration saw no need for a written agreement, and preferred any agreement not to take the form of a treaty requiring Senate ratification. Although the administration met Russia’s request, the president did not agree to anything he had not pledged to do unilaterally.

“As the president said, we believed it was not necessary to have a treaty because we are in a new phase of relations,” national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview on PBS’s “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” “But the president listened to his Russian partner.”

Senate Democrats and Republicans praised the agreement, and indications Monday were that it would face no significant obstacles to ratification.

http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N26/long_126.26w.html

Ahhh, but the devil is in the details...

According to the administration's own "article-by-article analysis" submitted with the treaty, the effective date of the treaty's only constraint -- a reduction in "operationally deployed strategic" weapons that must occur "by December 31, 2012,"-- lags by a microsecond the expiration of the overall treaty, which remains in force only "until December 31, 2012." The bottom line is the treaty's advertised "two-thirds" reduction in deployed strategic arsenals never enters into legal force and effect. The only substantive provision in the treaty is a sham.


The Moscow Treaty lacks any interim milestones for implementing reductions and assessing compliance. According to the article-by-article analysis: "...Prior to December 31, 2012 each Party is free to maintain whatever level of strategic nuclear warheads it deems appropriate ..." (emphasis added). This same freedom obviously exists on or after December 31, 2012, but for a different reason -- the treaty expires before compliance with the phantom reductions provision can even be assessed.


The treaty's voluntary, self-imposed "limit" on operationally deployed strategic weapons excludes strategic nuclear systems that are being overhauled, but the treaty contains no corresponding cap on the number of deployed warheads that may be claimed to be in overhaul at any given time. The result is that the 1,700- to 2,200-warhead limit, even if voluntarily observed by each side, is easily reversed.


President Reagan's "doverai no proverai" -- trust but verify -- approach is dead. The Moscow Treaty lacks verification and inspection provisions of any kind.


http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/moscow/moscflaw.asp

And one must remember that it was the Shrub who suddenly announced in his first year stolen into office that the USA would be pulling out of the 1972 ABM Treaty....he NEVER gave a plausible reason for this....and his "Moscow Treaty" was a really lame substitute.
 
Back
Top