What Most People Think About Lieberman

Re: Lieberman: Obama Won’t Get Nukes Treaty Without Major Changes by Sam Stein, stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) at the 2008 Republican National Convention

Sometimes I like to borrow opinions from others that are poignant and truthful. I think this article posted today in HuffPost is clearly another opportunity to share a few of the comments from HuffPost members as to what Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has to say about President Obama’s historic renewal of the START treaty.

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) predicted on Sunday that President Obama would not get the votes needed to pass his nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia unless there were significant modifications to the administration’s approach.
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.”

Here is what some of the folks who also read the article had to say:

From SShaw490:

The treaty is simply the continuation of a Golden Age of US/Soviet relations that began under Reagan, and the furtherance of Reagan’s stated goal of a steady reduction in nuclear stockpiles until the weapons are eliminated from the Earth in some wonderful, future day. There’s no reason in the world to imply that this treaty weakens America – when your nuclear stockpile remains big enough to wipe out life on the planet, how much more do you need? How many times do you have to kill everyone before you’ve killed them enough?
This is just an effort by Obama’s political opponents to weaken him as a president – to force him to make concessions and thus to diminish his stature in the eyes of the world. It’s an effort to hurt an American president, and ultimately, to hurt America. It’s more scorched-earth politics that elevates party power above the interests of our country. Anyone who ever votes for ANY Republican, no matter which one, is advancing the efforts to sacrifice our country at the altar of partisan power. Don’t ever forget it. EVER.

And a very good point from HumeSkeptic:

Yeah, we need to protect our allies in Europe from the nonexistent nookyular threat of Iran, especially the UK and France, who have enough of nookyular weapons to obliterate not just Iran but a few neighboring countries as well, just for good measure.
What in the heck is Lieberman talking about?
And to protect them, he would have Russia maintain a bigger stockpile of weapons, which is what it would mean if we insist on what he wants?
And what about protecting our allies in the Middle East from the real nookyular threat from Israel – the most trigger happy country in the world, next to us?

The heart of the matter, from BarryS:

we will be able to destroy the world 12X over instead of 16X over. Isn’t that enough? How does that disarm us?

About Joe Lieberman from Jerome48:

OK, so what Joe is really looking for is an amendment tacked on to provide Connecticut-based insurance companies with complete tax and regulation exemptions– then he’ll go along….

More about Joe, from americanwhoserved:

Joe (AIPAC) Lieberman is beyond disgusting. He needs to be stripped of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee NOW. Joe is all about Joe and Israel, not about America.

What Lieberman probably doesn’t realize is that this treaty is the result of recommendations made by the Defense Secretary Gates, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If Joe thinks he knows more about Iran’s capabilities than those guys, then he should say so, otherwise just shut the phuck up. This is from The New START Treaty and Protocol | The White House, Section 7:

7.    Fact Sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy –A “Phased, Adaptive Approach” for Missile Defense in Europe

President Obama approved the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe.  This approach is based on an assessment of the Iranian missile threat, and a commitment to deploy technology that is proven, cost-effective, and adaptable to an evolving security environment.

Starting around 2011, this missile defense architecture will feature deployments of increasingly-capable sea- and land-based missile interceptors, primarily upgraded versions of the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), and a range of sensors in Europe to defend against the growing ballistic missile threat from Iran.  This phased approach develops the capability to augment our current protection of the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats, and to offer more effective defenses against more near-term ballistic missile threats.  The plan provides for the defense of U.S. deployed forces, their families, and our Allies in Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous program, and involves more flexible and survivable systems.

The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to the President that he revise the previous Administration’s 2007 plan for missile defense in Europe as part of an ongoing comprehensive review of our missile defenses mandated by Congress.  Two major developments led to this unanimous recommended change:

New Threat Assessment:  The intelligence community now assesses that the threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range ballistic missiles is developing more rapidly than previously projected, while the threat of potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capabilities has been slower to develop than previously estimated.  In the near-term, the greatest missile threats from Iran will be to U.S. Allies and partners, as well as to U.S. deployed personnel – military and civilian –and their accompanying families in the Middle East and in Europe.

Advances in Capabilities and Technologies:  Over the past several years, U.S. missile defense capabilities and technologies have advanced significantly.  We expect this trend to continue.  Improved interceptor capabilities, such as advanced versions of the SM-3, offer a more flexible, capable, and cost-effective architecture. Improved sensor technologies offer a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.

These solid recommendations are made from solid intelligence, not something Lieberman is so involved with. What it boils down to is since Iran has developed shorter range delivery systems faster than the long range intercontinental ones, then that is where we need to concentrate our missile defenses in the region. It clearly states that according to intelligence this is the most effective measures to take against Iran’s near-term, shorter range, missile threats to our deployed soldiers, their families, and Israel.

I guess Joe Lieberman didn’t read that part. Anyway, SShaw490 was right. Lieberman’s obstruction is less about striking a blow at nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear war, and more about striking and blow at Barack Obama.

____________________________________________________________________