Senators debate nuclear weapons treaty; no vote slated yet
December 16th, 2010
09:32 PM ET
10 years ago

Senators debate nuclear weapons treaty; no vote slated yet

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Senate began formal debate Thursday on a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, a top presidential priority that conservative Republicans had tried to block in the current lame-duck session of Congress.

However, the chamber moved on to other issues on Thursday night, leaving open the question of when it would vote on ratifying the pact.


Filed under: Senate • START treaty
soundoff (4 Responses)
  1. Ancient Texan

    Does anyone actually believe that Russia is a friend of the U.S.? Our Naive leader gave up too much instead of using bargaining as a tool. Oh well, Community Organizers have limited experience and knowledge.

    December 16, 2010 09:41 pm at 9:41 pm |
  2. GonzoinHouston

    The GOP has given this treaty the NO treatment all year, and that's disgraceful. Treaties are an issue that should be more important than partisan back-stabbing.

    Hmm, I wonder if there's a private understanding that START has to be approved in order for the tax bill to go through?

    December 16, 2010 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm |
  3. Name king

    What is wrong with these repugs, they've blocked a bill that would have not raised tax for 98% of the people who spend and creat jobs in the economy, for the 2% rich who are consolidation, switching to robots and computer systems for workers and sending jobs over seas and keeping their monrey on the sidelines, after raping the American customers of all the money they've got. 10 years and 4 trillion dollars worth of tax break deficit not mentioning almost 2 trillion dollars of unfunded two wars, that slung the country into the abyss, now they are stalling our national security. What these American people was smoking when they distroyed the dems and put these people in power.

    December 17, 2010 03:59 am at 3:59 am |
  4. jules sand-perkins

    I hope that we sent enough Republicans to Washington in November to block Obama's negotiating anything with Russia. When this President is gone, a stronger leader–even a Democrat–will get us a better deal.
    Obama gives the impression that he would try to appease any country that wanted to take advantage of the USA, which I think Obama considers a nation with basic Constitutional defects that need to be fixed by him.
    Our president also has an advance Nobel Peace Prize to earn. With his lightweight image in other countries, he presents himself as a representative of appeasement. He frequently reminds me of Neville Chamberlain, and I'd bet that Obama thinks that the Rosenbergs had the right idea about America's relationship to Russia regarding nuclear weapons. We don't need Obama's dealing with nuclear treaties: we need another guy like Reagan for that.

    December 17, 2010 06:37 am at 6:37 am |