Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: Nuclear Summit -- "Is Jon Kyl Paying Attention?" (NeuroticDemocrat.com 4/14/10)


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Nuclear Summit -- "Is Jon Kyl Paying Attention?" (NeuroticDemocrat.com 4/14/10)
Permalink  
 


Read @ NeuroticDemocrat.com

"

Is Jon Kyl Paying Attention?

Jon Kyl, a Republican Senator from Arizona, had this to say about President Obama’s nuclear summit:

“The summit’s purported accomplishment is a nonbinding communiqué that largely restates current policy, and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”

Consequently, he has vowed to oppose nuclear treaties that Obama is working so hard to sign.

Sometimes I wonder where Republicans get the chutzpah.

Did Kyl miss the part where China agreed, for the first time this week, to discuss a serious sanctions regime against Iran?

Did Kyl not notice that Canada, Mexico, and Ukraine promised to eliminate or give up their surplus weapons-grade materials?

No meaninfgul progress? Really?

Did Kyl miss this, from the Times:

At the end of two days of meetings, Mr. Obama could claim two major accomplishments: The summit meeting forced countries that had failed to clean up their nuclear surpluses to formulate detailed plans to deal with them, and it kicked into action nations that had failed to move on previous commitments.

These are steps. Yes, meaningful steps.

Obama is showing true leadership on this issue, because, as he says, one of the gravest threats to our security is a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist. Would Kyl disagree that this is a threat? If not, why would he throw such prominent darts at the first serious diplomatic effort in a decade to address it?

Wouldn’t it be better — and in our national security interest — for lawmakers (even Republicans!) to forcefully articulate whether they agree with Obama’s assessment of the threat, and at least fairly note the steps taken this week to make the world safer? Couldn’t you do this — and still offer constructive criticism, instead of a broadside? Wouldn’t such a broadside ultimately undermine any positive steps, weaken the overall effort, and thus make America less safe?

Ask Jon Kyl.

"

Source link to NeuroticDemocrat.com with hat tip!

It's because Jon Kyl belongs to the party of "Hell No" that has decided they will say "No" to everything. The party of chutzpah is getting fueled by the mindless lashing by the milieu. 

Yes, the 47-country signed nuclear treaty/cooperation agreement is a real win for the President and for the U.S. 

And no, it does not take away the threat for countries like Iran nor for others who currently have or in the future develop nuclear weapons.  That is just the point.

But GOP does not want to get the point, lest the country may notice a real win!

There are plenty of opportunities to criticize the President. You dont need to pick every scuffle and make it a battle.  GOP is becoming the tomboy that cried wolf.

-- Edited by Sanders on Thursday 15th of April 2010 01:24:20 AM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

I believe this just points further to the need for three viable parties. In all honesty, the Dems did the same to W. Neither party is as concerned about the well-being of this country as they are about getting their candidates elected and reelected. And, when a Republican ran a campaign calling for "country first", his party and the country either withheld their votes, or voted for the opposition - in droves. I guess it doesn't pay to try to be inclusive and bi-partisan, after all. The rhetoric of both parties is so polarizing. They keep the country divided for their own benefit - to win elections. To hell with the people - just win, at all cost.

Sadly, the unfounded criticism each party makes of the other - sound bites with no substance, much of the time - is what influences many American voters.

Maybe the voters who actually want the best for their country would do well to just vote all incumbents out of office - sending the strong message that we're sick of politics as usual - while the country goes to hell in a hand basket.

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yes, freespirit, voting all the incumbents out would indeed cause chaos.

The situation forces me to assess each incumbent vs. all others on the ticket. Going wholesale chuck'em is going to result in a HUGE win to GOP. I am not sure that is a good thing for the country ESPECIALLY when they have shown they have no real solutions. Their cant words and campaign of slogans without substance is enough to make me scream at times. It is rare that we find a real good platform that is appealing to a true centrist from a GOP runner - Scott Brown was a great exception.


__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard