The editors of the National Review have joined the New-START debate with their opinion piece strongly backing Governor Romney’s points against the treaty. The piece is well written and actually makes you wonder if Kerry was lying about the terms of the treaty in order to attack Romney, or if Washington Democrats really are that far off base with the Russian interpretation of the agreement. See below:
Romney pointed out that the linkage in the preamble of the treaty between strategic offensive weapons and missile defenses could limit our defenses. His critics scoff, It’s just a meaningless preamble. They should tell that to the Russians. The Russians believe that if we increase our strategic defenses, we are in violation of the treaty and that they will be justified in withdrawing from it. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said, “Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding.” Members of the Duma have said the same thing.
Apparently, it is not only the National Review pointing out that Kerry is wrong. Moscow seems to agree as well.
Along with discrediting Kerry, the piece researches into the background of the treaty to highlight the points, alluded to by Romney, in which the treaty heavily favors the Russians. On bombers:
Similarly, as Romney wrote, the new treaty counts a bomber as one weapon no matter how many warheads are loaded onto it. The Russians, unlike us, have decided to start a new heavy-bomber program — once again, the treaty is laxest in just the area most convenient to the Russians. Notably, the Russian press has been reporting that Moscow will game the treaty to retain 2,100 deployed strategic nuclear weapons.
Strangely enough, Romney’s critics also seems to have ignored this point. The piece itself is worth reading, more so than I can do it justice on here. The main point lies in the title however. Romney was right. Clearly, the facts support that Governor Romney did his homework before putting together his op-ed, unlike John Kerry and his fellow critics on the left, who are either entirely clueless or are taking negotiations with the Russian Federation entirely too lightly. The facts behind the treaty reinforce the truth that Mitt Romney is ready to provide a strong reasoned approach to the issues challenging the United States. He doesn’t see the path to leadership in scoring political points, or developing a catchy slogan as other politicians do. This is Mitt Romney ready for 2012, an individual who is by no means a foreign policy lightweight, and who is ready to tackle the many various responsibilities of President of the United States.
Talent correctly explains how Kerry never addressed or disproved any of Romney’s points, just dismissed or ignored them. Not to spoil the article, but Talent sums this up best at the end when he states. “The more the administration ignores or dismisses the concerns of critics, the clearer it is that the changes embodied in this treaty will not be for the better, and could be disastrous.” How true, but of course ignoring those critical of its policy has been standard form for this administration…
It appears that Romney’s piece has hit a little close to home for some on the left, stirring up the ire of John “Dukakis 2.0” Kerry. Mitt Romney is “trying to score cheap political points” with a national defense issue, asserts the man who compared our servicemen to Genghis Khan during his 2004 bid for the Presidency. Anyway, I suppose its nice to know that Sarah Palin isn’t the only one that can get the liberals riled up.