missle defense plans. so i know we have a lot of experts in the senate on this issue, but i certainly believe that the experts who have spoken there about the lack of an impact on our ability as a country to develop a missle defense system are people who should be believed because they know what they're talking about. now, the other thing that i think it's important to point out, and i know senator kerry did this earlier, but with respect to the resolution of ratification and some of the concerns that senator demint raised on the floor this evening, i just want to read what is in this resolution of ratification. this is language that senator demint had amended into the resolution to address the concerns that he had. defending the united states and allies against stratigic attack, it is the sense of the senate that a paramount obligation of the united states government is to provide for the defense of the american people. deploying members of the united states armed forces and united states allies against n

missle defense. trying to find ways to reduce the effect of our missle defense on riewrch stratigic capabilities. they it with president reagan, he said no. they tried it again in the treaty -- the first start treaty. they tried it again in the moscow treaty of 2002 and they tried it again here. the difference between this treaty and the previous times is that the united states always pushed back and said, no, we're going to rely on missle defense. and it's a moral thing to do and we're not going to get into quid pro woes with you where with -- quid pro quos with you. in the start i treaty when the russians said in the signing statement we find this inner relationship and the united states should not advance its missle defense capabilities, the united states pushed back strongly in our statement and said, no, that would not be a grounds for withdrawal from treaty and the russians need to understand that. they never did withdraw even though we did withdraw from the a.b.m. treaty so we can build missle

missile defense. they called it "star wars" and mocked it and denigrated it, but the truth is that those -- those treaties -- those proposals worked and we now have deployed in alaska and california, we have deployed there missile defense systems capable of knocking down north korean missiles and probably iranian missiles, although iranians coming from the other side of the globe and there are some -- there is some need to have some redundancy there and that's why the missile defense site was selected in europe. president bush and his team spent some years, invest add lot of time working with the czechs and the poles. the czechs agreed to sign -- signinged and agreement that they would accept a radar site and the poles signed an disagreement that they would accept a -- signed an agreement that they would accept a missile site and the russians have objected. they have objected to our missile defense system for years, for reasons that strike me as under the circumstancesserly -- as utterly inexplicable.

defense secretary gates, admiral mullen, general patrick o'reilly, who is in charge of our missle defense program, have all testified the treaty does nothing to impede our missle defense plans. the resolution ratification has explicitly reemphasized this in multiple ways. some commentators have expressed, as have some senators, concern that the treaty's preamble, notes and interrelationship between strategic offense and strategic defense. the preamble language does not permit rights nor impose obligations. it cannot be used to create an obligation under the treaty. and the text in question stating a truism of strategic planning that an interrelationship exists between stratigic offense and stratigic defense. as a matter of fact, it always has and does exist. we have argued that among ourselves in terms of our own defense and so have russians as well as our colloquy with the russians. critics have also worried that the treaty's about converting redueses our missile defense option but as we statuted general o'reilly said it would not be in our own benefit to pursue because the cost is estim

missile defense. our plans tor develop a limited system that can shoot down a rogue missile. but in the hearings with secretary gates, secretary clinton, chairman kerry, it was made very clear that this treaty made it clear to the russians and to the whole world that the united states would not even attempt to develop a missile defense system capable of shooting down multiple missiles. if russia was the only country in the world capable of developing multiple nuclear missiles, perhaps we could discuss that within that context. but as we know today, there that has been a proliferation of nuclear technology to many countries -- iran and north korea -- we know other countries such as pakistan have nuclear weapons, it's not unrealistic to suggest that within a few years there may be numerous countries who have the capabilities to fire multiple missiles at the united states or one of our allies. americans need to know that we are agreeing with this start treaty not to even attempt to develop a system to de

i think -- are defense-based shows. i think you are right. >> that is in large part the innocence movement, proving to injuries that they have gotten it wrong time and time again. this innocence project is based in new york. 300 individuals exonerated on dna evidence. people are starting to wake up to the important role of criminal defense attorneys, but jonathan is right. that court tv, we cover cases where public defenders and criminal defense attorneys are in court. we do not choose the cases based on either or. we see fine lawyer ring from both. often, the best lawyers a vcr from the public defender's office. they do not know the difference. >,7ythey do not know if it is cg albie, one of the best lawyers we have ever put on tv. they do not know how a public defender differs from a criminal attorney. i am shocked that the public has a lack of understanding among the public defender does, how we should be resources. this is a critical reason why i am here today. >> what i heard jonathan to just is that public defender

they can't allow their defense back on the field.t. >> jon: and billy cundiff, long range kickoff man of the baltimore ravens will be getting loose at the sideline. >> mike: neil rackers sends it away to david reed. this is five yards deep and he'll take a knee. >> jon: before that two-minute drill, mike. ravens had third and two. flacco decided to throw the ball. a lot of us thought they were going to run the ball, run clock and try to get out of town. that's why when you're an offensive coordinator, you make those call, that's why you earn the big buck, jaws. >> mike: that's with 2:54 left and clock stoppage. 40 seconds difference. houston came down the field and able to do it. >> jon: this is the chance for the raven offer fence to redeem themselves from last week. they need to win the football game for this raven outfit. >> mike: they are in there once again with the heavy personnel. pressure again. they've been blitzing up the middle. and found mason somehow. what a play by flacco, a gain of five. >> ron: that's an incredible pl

of missile defense. and so i -- i think that her comments were very articulate but they're not correct, because, again, i would place into the record the many leaders from former republican administrations who are pressing us hard to get this treaty done. as a matter of fact, we've had no boots on the ground, nobody to verify what the russians are doing for a long time now. and this treaty will actually make sure that we can verify. and so whether it's defense secretary robert gates or, again, lieutenant general patrick o'reilly, head of u.s. missile defense, or the director of national intelligence, you have former secretary of defense james schlesinger saying he does not believe this i object hibts missile defense -- inhibits missile defense. you have former secretary of defense under clinton, william perry, being very strong on th this. secretary of state henry kissinger, and so on and so on. we have in "the washington post" this comment as signed by henry kissinger, george schultz, james baker, lawre

this subject of don't ask don't tell belongs on the defense authorization bill because it was a defense authorization bill which created the policy or put it in law, more accurately, the begin with. >> but on that point about what stopped the defense authorization bill. it wasn't really a don't ask don't tell. was it? because, ironically, a super majority, not -- a super majority of the senate supported passing the bill and supported repealing the don't ask don't tell. but it was blocked because it was tied to unrelated issues because republicans wanted to have a vote first on taxes and on funding the government. so, i mean, don't we have an ironic situation here where it's not -- that's not really it, it's because it's getting wrapped in with larger politically charged issues? in other words, it's not really the will of a minority even being thwarted. it's a super majority that supported this. >> well, the -- we didn't get 60 votes to proceed and the reason we didn't get 60 votes to proceed is what you're driving at. i'll read you one part letter. we will not agree to invoke cloture, w

missile defense programs. unilateral statements are routine to arms control treaties and do not alter the legal rights and obligations of the parties in the treaty. moscow issued a similar statement concerning the s.t.a.r.t. i treaty implying its conditions were conditional involving the united states compliance with the abm treaty yet russia did not withdraw from s.t.a.r.t. when the united states withdrew from the abm treaty in 2001. nor did it was dropped when we subsequently destroyed missile defense interceptors in california and alaska. nor did it withdraw when we announced plans for missile defense in poland and the czech republic. russia's unilateral statement does nothing to contribute to its right to withdraw from the tree. that right which we also possess is standard in all recent arms control treaties and most treaties considered throughout the united states's history. resolution of ratification approved by the formal relations committee reaffirms that the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty will in no way inhibi

the subject of don't ask/don't tell belongs on the defense authorization bill because it was a defense authorization bill which created the policy or put it in law. >> we have about 10 minutes left. >> on the point about what stopped the defense authorization bill, it really was not don't ask/don't tell. ironically, a supermajority in a senate, 60 senators supported repealing the bill and don't ask/don't tell. you knew there were 60 votes on that. but it was blocked because it was tied to unrelated issues because republicans wanted to have a vote first on taxes. do we not have an ironic situation here where that is not really it? it is because it is getting wrapped in with larger, politically charged issues. it is not really the will of a minority. >> we did not get 60 votes. the reason we did not get 60 votes, which you are driving yet -- i can read you one line in a letter sent by republicans. "we will not agree to proceed on any legislative item until the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently waiting taxpayers." in other wor

through missile defense. members of administrations past and present have affirmed it is important to have arms control treatyies with the russians. there's not ever been a question of trusting the russians. there's been a question of trying to provide verification, that the permission of the treaties we have negotiated are in fact fulfilled. it is a fact, as has been suggested by some senators, that on several occasions we have found violations or very dubious conduct on the pafrt russians. -- on the part of the russians. i have no idea how many times they have tested they have found something doubtful about our peformance. but in any event, in the real world of deterrence and the real world of verifiability, there have been abrasions and arguments and disputes. i would simply say that one of the values of the treaties we've had with the russians, and specifically, the start treaty regime, is that they have allowed many of us -- the distinguished chairman has made a good number of trips to russia and to coun

it was about criminal defense attorneys.there was a cultural response on the part of news media and entertainment media to what the audience wanted to see. >> good segue. jonathan, from the commerce report of the operation, would you agree that the media contributes to -negative perception of the public defender? >> law and order has been running for 20 years in various forms. the media reflects what the public wants. that is my first point. my second point is, i was a federal prosecutor. like any other federal prosecutor, i came to admire, respect, the impressed with the quality of work that public defenders did. the best lawyers in

missile defense. we also heard from the directors of the nation's nuclear laboratories. the intelligence officials charged with monitoring threats to the united states and we heard as i mentioned previously several times from the negotiators of the agreement. we heard from officials who serve in the nixon administration. ford, carter, reagan, bullish, clinton, bullish 43, we heard from officials in every one of those administrations and overwhelmingly they told us we should ratify the new s.t.a.r.t.. as i said, some of the strongest support for this tree comes from the military. i chaired a hearing on the nuclear posture. modernization of nuclear weapons complex and missile defense plans, general shelton, commander of u.s. strategic command responsible for overseeing nuclear deterrent overseeing why the military supports new s.t.a.r.t.. he says, quote, if we don't get the treaty, the russians are not constrained in their development of structure and we have no insight into what they are doing. it is t

defense. the new start treaty not only contains -- but reestablishes an unwise linkage between offense and defense broken when the l.b.m. treaty came to an end. russia's statement that the treaty can only be viable only if the united states of america is troubling. viewed together, you new start treaty's preamble and russia's unilateral statement amount to a russian attempt to find a leverage point and exert political pressure upon the united states to forestall deploying a robust missile defense capability by threatening to withdraw from the treaty if we seek to increase our missile defense capabilities. the recommend for this -- the remedy for this concern is for the senate to strike the offensive preamble language. that is why i wholeheartedly support an effort to strike the preamble as well as an amendment to strike paragraph 3 of article 5 of the treaty. with regard to delivery vehicle modernization, and i want to speak specifically in that regard to bombers, madam president, nearly two y

the defense budget sacrifice? don't. during the campaign, what we heard most of the tea pty candidates, some of whom were elected, is that we have to get this deficit down. we have to protect medicare, social security, the defense budget, and we cannot raise taxes. i do not know what they are talking about. you cannot get there from here. [laughter] but mckeon has been very clear that they are not going to get savings out of the defense budget. he is not talking that way at all. i honestly doubt -- probably because some of the incoming budget cutter's positions are incoherent. i really do not expect in this coming year -- and the argument that mckean is very powerful at the moment. we have two wars going on, he will say. there is the simplicity that they will not listen to any of the specifics we have been driving down on. when you have a defense secretary from the opposite party who does not want to cut any more -- >> the question is not where the new members stand. they have to figure that out. it is the shift i

i came from a car rear as a criminal defense attorney.the bis filters into the programming, reporting, coverage of cases. most of the cases do not have a camera present. even when the camera is present, it cannot entirely help to filter of bias. how many of you can sit at home

not on the defense side. u.s. planning and force requirements might have to change in the future to respond to evolving world threats during new start's tenure. it is important that our nation be able to adjust our military defense systems if needed. we're not just talking about russia now. we're talking about adjusting our missile defense capabilities against any other country in the world, including rogue nations that we believe have nuclear capabilities. we are not sure how far developed they are, but we know north korea is trying to have a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. we know iran is too. we know pakistan has them. and though pakistan is an ally, it is a fragile government at this point. why would we in any way link our own missile defense capabilities with the evolving threats out there regardless of our present good terms that we have with russia center why would we -- that we have with russia? why would we do that? that is a unilateral capability that our country must insist that we keep for ou

should be cut the defense byr to it? -- the defense budget/ >> we will come back next january. i will say something in early january, my sense of where we will go. but we will have some of the toughest choices that we face over the long haul regarding our fiscal situation. our national security is our national security. if we can afford to do that, we can always afford to do that. i believe, as you know, there was $70 billion already committed. what we have done is response to our experts who told us that if we do not do x, y, and z, our deterrent would be impacted. that differential is not going to be hard to find in the context of the overall budget. we will look at everything next year as far as i'm concerned. but at i'm deeply concerned about is that we do not get locked into just one ideological approach to how we are going to resolve the fiscal crisis, there we understand that long-term investment in america, particularly to createhe kinds of jobs we need to create in order to compete in the rest of, the world is not a spending measure. it is an investment. and it will re

missile defense. ever since president reagan proposed the strategic defense initiative, the russians have sought to limit development and deployment of our strategic defensive arms because they knew they could never compete. they sought to find our actions on missile defense through legal obligations and treaties. and when that didn't work, through political commitments or agreements that could citeed to confer future obligations and thus transformed into a political threat. in short, the russians have always understood that u.s. missile defenses would be superior to any defensive system the russian federation and the soviet union before it could ever deploy. so they have been relentless in trying to block it. it's for this reason, and because the bush administration worked so hard to break the lynchage between -- linkage, that former secretary of state condoleezza rice conclude tphad recent op-ed which i cited earlier with the following counsel to this body -- and i quote -- "the senate must make abs

missile defense, a they failed s the defense secretary asserts. does anyone really believe that russia negotiating ambitions shting were fulfilled by nonbindingy language in the preamble or by unilateral russian statement with no legal force or by a prohibition on converting silosn which cost more than building new ones? these are truths with provisions that do nothing to constrain us. moreover, southland, a in muiple resolution of ratification states explicitly in multiple ways that we have no intention of being constrained. our government is investing heavily in missile defense. strong bipartisan majorities in congress favor of pursuingile current missile defense plans.es what the russians are left withn on missile defensess. unrealized ambitions. at the end of any treaty negotiation between t any two a countries, there are always unrealized ambitions left on the table by both sides.out this has been true throughoutdic diplomatic history. things om the russians might want allat de sorts of things from us, butgoit that doesn't mean they are going

house of representatives passing the defense authorization bill with a seven hundred twenty five billion dollars price tag late friday evening it was passed with little fanfare no debate no news reports that this is the largest single military spending bill in the history of mankind and it comes in at seventeen billion dollars above what the obama administration requested it gives one hundred sixty billion dollars to the wars in iraq and afghanistan with almost no restrictions on how those funds should be used and just to be mindful term mind the american people that they've heard their worries about the government spending too much they were dues to next year's pay increase for military personnel from the one point nine percent the lawmakers approved in the summer to one point four percent way to cut corners you guys so with so much money being thrown around at the pentagon and no tangible results to back it up where the hell is everybody on this one here to discuss with me is dr james carafano a senior research fellow for national security at the heritage foundation james thanks so muc

we need a robust missile defense system. and i believe, as we said earlier, that this treaty chills that. because no matter what you say, if you read the independent statements that were made by the parties, the russians have said that if we go forward with improving either quantitatively or qualitatively our missile defense system, this is grounds for withdrawing from this treaty. well, i don't think we should have a treaty in place that in any way chills the thinking that we have about what we do to protect the american people with a robust missile defense system that could knock out of the sky an attack by either north korea or by iran or even an accidental loss -- an accidental launch by the russians, which although remote, is a possibility. well, today let's talk about something that we can agree on, and that is the importance of tactical weapons in this discussion. as the distinguished chairman mentioned in his opening statement, the importance of the tactical weapons issue is a matter which we should be concerned abou

our missile defense plans.he said -- and i quote -- "the new start treaty reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program in several areas. for example, m.d.a.'s immediate-range lv-2 target booster system used in key tests to demonstrate homeland defense capabilities and components of the new european phased adaptive approach was accountable under the previous start treaty because it employed the first range of the now-retired trident i slbm," and then he says, "under new start, this missile is not accountable. thus, we will have greater flexibility in conducting testing with regard to launch locations, telemetry collections and processing, thus allowing more efficient test architectures and operational realistic intercept geometries." now, that's a -- that's a very technical summation by lieutenant general patrick o'reilly. he's the director of the missile defense agency. he's not just some -- making some casual observation in a -- in a think-tank or even as a member of congress. we -- we

it is not just defense. it is the question of incarceration and the criminal justice system as how we can effectively have less crime to the extent that people can be rehabilitated, and that we do it at the lowest possible, reasonable cost. >> let's hear from you. back here. we will have a microphone. >> thank you. my name is jeff. i am an independent consultant. i want to talk a little bit about the disconnect lisa mentioned. she mentioned it in the context of social security, which has never can -- contributed a single penny to the deficit. later, today, i believe,ust up the street, the president will sign a tax bill, which will be the biggest deficit increase of his administration. i have hardly heard that mentioned that all during this panel. there seems to be a particular disconnect with theembers of the deficit commission. there were "representatives who met for months and months, and talk about deficit. now, the majority of them voted for this tax bill, which drastically increases the deficit. i want

missile defense. this is something that a lot of my colleagues have talked about. it's kind of the core at the concerns that a lot of us have of the treaty, and, frankly, my ultimate support or not will depend, to some extent, on how we resolve this issue, whether it's by amendment to the preamble to the treaty or in resolution of ratification or a combination of things. but clearly, this treaty implicates u.s. missile defense and that is wrong. one of the chief achievements of the bush administration was to finally decouple missile defense and strategic offensive weapons and the treaties that deal with strategic offensive weapons. it was somewhat limited in the start treaty, but in the moscow treaty of 2002, or so-called sort treaty, we said we're going to reduce our weapons. if the russians want to do the same, that's fine with us, we don't need a treaty to deal with that. the russians essentially said we want a treaty and we want to you limit your missile defenses. we said no and eventually they we

missile we talked a lot about missilend defense, mr. president, and i se just want to say i have been of treaty, i've been through every word of the amex, i've been wd f through every word of thecountli protocols, i've been ine toay countless briefings, andothing n mr. president, i would like to s say there is nothing in this lim treaty that limits our missile a defense other than the fact that we cannot convert icbm launchere that we launched on the offense for missile defense, something our military leaders do not want to do. that is the most expensive way of creating a missile defensehin system that is something they do di discussions brought up because in the preamble something was stated the was non-binding and so how do we clear that? letter? where is the letter? of a a letternt that the president st to us absolutely committing -- absolutely committing to thethas missile defense system that is now being deployed in europe, na absolutely committing to a national defense system, and mr. president i have assurance the resolution of r

[applause] how can defense attorneys or people who work in the system make that known and worked with journalists? >> i generally bring everybody out to lunch or to a bar or to both. journalists and police officers have this classic cold war, and there was even a cold war between defense attorneys and journalists -- certainly between prosecutors and reporters, and i find if i write a story they cannot just come back and say, this is wrong, and this is wrong. if they are faced with the fact i have busted my butt to get everything right and have gone to them and really tried hard to represent my view points, then they do not have an argument about going to a bar with maie. we have people whispering to us, and that is part of the dynamic, but i find once you develop a reputation for trying hard to understand all the things you people learn in hastings and asking stupid questions over and over again -- is there a police called in continent? -- plea called in continent? if you ask the questions, eventually they explain. even the judges in santa clara county who were giving the colloquies,

does the defense budget sacrifice? >> some do and some don't. during the campaign, what we heard most of the tea party candidates, some of whom were elected, is that we have to get this deficit down. we have to protect medicare, social security, the defense budget, and we cannot raise taxes. i do not know what they are talking about. you cannot get there from here. [laughter] but mckeon has been very clear that they are not going to get savings out of the defense budget. he is not talking that way at all. i honestly doubt -- probably because some of the incoming budget cutter's positions are incoherent. i really do not expect in this coming year -- and the argument that mckean is very powerful at the moment. we have two wars going on, he will say. there is the simplicity that they will not listen to any of the specifics we have been driving down on. when you have a defense secretary from the opposite party who does not want to cut any more -- >> the question is not where the new members stand. they have to figure that

there is the inherent bias against us as a criminal defense lawyers.dded on top of that is the fact that we have this position of incompetence, somebody who is new that does not know what they're doing.db& and that our clients are probably guilty or there would have hired a real lawyer. it is amazing, considering those biases, that we speak to anybody in the press. why would we go to that source when our image has been so abused in? >> but how do we change if we do not go to the source? >> we have to, but you have to overcome that initial resistance. >> years ago i was involved in the case and one of the question was, what you think about prosecutors? wonderful. what about criminal defense lawyers? one person wrote just one word, sleazy. when i met him i said, we have never met, i did not take it personally. he said, oh, i meant it in a good way. [laughter] people don't appreciate how important jury selection is. judges often totally lose track of that because they want to move these cases. particularly in the immediate case, but in every case. >> one

. >>> japan is shifting its approach to defense. it plans to upgrade the mobility of the self-defense forces to enable them to respond to moves by north korea and china. the cabinet endorsed the guidelines on friday. they are the first in six years. the guidelines call north korea an unstable factor in the region's security. china, they say, is a growing concern for the international community as that country becomes more active in waters near japan. e plan calls for boosting the surveillance capabilities of the sdf and enabling troops to be more mobile. the changes reflect a shift from a deterrent stance to one that allows japan to readily counter emergencies. the number of ground sdf personnel will be cut by 1,000 along with a substantial reduction in the number of tanks. the maritime and air self-defense forces will be reinforced and more submarines will be used. security will be increased in the waters of southwestern japan by deploying ground sdf troops on the nansei islands. the guidelines don't mention relaxing the ban on wea

on those defenses." secretary gates then goes on to say in that hearing, he went on to say that -- quote -- "as the administration's ballistic missile defense review and budget makes clear, the united states will continue to improve our capability to defend ourselves. our deployed forces and our allies and partners against ballistic missile threats." from a historical perspective, i'd note that similar unilateral statements on missile defense were made by russia in connection with start i, in connection with start ii, both of which treaties were approved by the congress. consistent with the statements that secretaries clinton and gates made, the foreign relation committee's resolution of approval contains an understanding included in the instrument of ratification that -- quote -- "it is the understanding that the new start treaty does not impose any limitations on the deployment of missle defenses other than the requirement of paragraph 3, article 5, and that section of the treaty prohibits the use of s

military who testified before the senate said the connection between offensive and defensive weapons is obvious they also maintained it's not start that would make the u.s. weaker the treaty itself explicitly says either side can pull out of it if at some point they deem it threatens their national security for russians this new start is about balance and equality and they will be in it as long as the u.s. respects that balance in russia the outcome of the vote in the u.s. senate has been welcomed from many in moscow it's a signal that the u.s. and russia can now open a new page of cooperation with the president obama did a really good job under rather difficult conditions and he managed to get this important treatments approved in the senate as security for the next few years will be based on this treaty and in general i can say that it's easy for me to work with president obama that because he can really listen to you and he used them he's not impeded by stereotypes and what is probably the most important thing for a politician because he keeps his promises russian lawmakers made i

missile defense, they failed, as the defense secretary asserts. does anyone really believe that russian gshting ambitions were -- gshting ambitions were fulfilled by nonbinding language in the preamble or by a unilateral russian staple with no russian force or by a prohibition by converting silos which cost more than building new ones? these are toothless, fig leaf provisions that do nothing to constrain us. moreover, as outlined, our resolution of ratification states explicitly in multiple ways that we have no intention of being constrained. our governance is investing heavily in missile defense p. strong bipartisan majorities in congress favor pursuing current missile defense plans. what the russians are left with on missile defense is unrealized ambitions. at the end of any treaty negotiation between any two countries, there are always unrealized ambitions left on the table by both sides. this has been true throughout diplomatic history. the russians might want all sorts of things from us, but that does not mean they are going to get them. and

he has had to ask himself, will stand up against my own defense establishment? the national security state is a powerful thing. in his first term, he went along with them. you what our troops for afghanistan, ok, i will give them to you. now people have to stand up and ask and sell the basic question -- now he will have to stand up and ask himself a basic question, will i stand up to the defense establishment, or to a risky thing and really start pulling out? >> alexander the great, the british, the russians -- what does barack obama and the defense establishment have to offer is that they did not? >> if you are pessimistic, you think karzai and corruption and unreliable pakistanis. if you think in the shorter run, the tactical level, i believe the administration when it says they are making progress, meaning they are expanding the circle of the territory in the pashtun areas in the south and kandahar, where we are in control and not the taliban. the taliban, remember, have an approval level of about 6%, and nancy pelosi levels. the reason people support them is

documents produced by the senators and these commit washington to missile defense systems and modernizing its nuclear arsenal but did not affect the main body of the treaty the deal was signed in april by presidents with the f. and obama as an education reports being hailed as a major diplomatic victory. in the vote. on this american on this sort of resolution are seventy one days twenty six nays two thirds of the senate president having voted in the affirmative the resolution of ratification is agreed to. and we disapprove all russian the u.s. will start the new year with a treaty that has become a symbol of trust and cooperation between the two nuclear superpowers i am glad that democrats and republicans came together to approve my top national security priority for this session of congress the new start treaty this is the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades and it will make us safer and reduce our nuclear arsenals along with russia. both states have some very significant reductions underway over the next ten years the countries will cut their nuclear arsenals