Treaty Proponents: There They Go Again
On Tuesday, Heritage Action’s Tripp Baird responded in The Hill to Brent Budowsky, who claimed President Reagan would have supported the New START Treaty. Tripp countered, “Honest observers should not be tricked by this new argument – it is both irrelevant and wrong.”
Heritage Action wants to debate the issues. Proponents seem to engage in “heavyweight name-dropping.” Tripp pointed out:
Mr. Budowsky’s only attempt to address “legitimate concerns” was to say that they’ve been “addressed at length.” If he truly believes this treaty is “critical,” then his defense is wholly inadequate.
After talking with dozens of Senate offices, I can assure him that many concerns remain on both sides of the aisle. Senators and their staffs have serious concerns about the linkage between offensive and defensive weapons, the restrictions on missile defense and non-nuclear weapons, the Bilateral Consultative Commission, weak verification provision and more.
That prompted a response from Mr. Budowsky:
I do want to correct one point in his rebuttal, right off the top. He suggests that the only reference I made to Republican concerns being addressed by treaty supporters was to state they were addressed, not to state how.
This is incorrect — as I stated in my column, in response to concerns, the treaty supporters have added to START a significant modernization to American nuclear forces.
Mr. Budowsky unwittingly proves Tripp’s the point. He focused on modernization and then failed to address any of the issues that Tripp mentioned. Again, these concerns are bipartisan. We’ve been saying it for months – New START is fatally flawed and there needs to be a serious discussion of the issues. Make sure your Senators know you have concerns, too.