The Los Angeles Times editorial board can't get its story straight on the reasons the Senate should pass the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Or maybe it just doesn't understand the complicated issue and what is at stake. Thursday's editorial insists that there is bipartisan support for the treaty and that only a few radicals want to kill it and then attacks Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona for not supporting it and "acting not in the interest of the nation but of his party". Either the treaty has bipartisan support or it doesn't. Either it's not a partisan treaty or it is. The editorial board is doing what they claim Senator Kyl is doing -- playing politics at the expense of national security. No debate, just name calling. The truth is that the new START Treaty and the timing of pushing it through a lame-duck session of Congress is typical Obama partisanship with the same excuse for failure -- "it's the Republicans fault". The uber-liberal LA Times editorial board and consistent Obama apologist, however, would rather demonize anyone who doesn't support the treaty than debate its merit. So much for a rational discussion of national security issues.
In typical form, today's editorial maligns conservatives John Bolton, John Yoo and Senator Kyl for their concerns over the treaty. But is anyone surprised? The LA Times editorials of late could be written by the Democratic National Committee strategists that consistently applaud the partisan writings. Gone are the days when the editorials inform or bring to light real policy discussions. The editorials are so usual that they are no longer relevant, especially on foreign policy issues. In fact, whoever wrote today's START Treaty editorial sounds as if they don't understand the real issues involved in limiting nuclear arms or the research and development that is needed to create defense programs. The writing reads as if someone did a google search and tried to write an editorial from it. There is no discussion of:
- The actual concerns experts have in limiting our nuclear capability at such a dangerous time;
- The restrictions countries face in controlling their borders or stopping the actions of non-state actors;
- The wisdom of striking a deal with a significantly weakened Russia;
- The reasons we would allow the Russians to inspect and learn the latest American technology when they haven't had the money to develop their own.
The editorial also conveniently leaves out the objections of other Senators that have studied the issue and are compelled to change it or stop it. Surely no one could argue that Ohio Senator George Voinovich and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown are just partisan hacks too? The LA Times editorial just calls names, omits facts and plays politics.
The editorial's title -- "Nuclear Treaty Meltdown" -- even claims that all Republicans are just looking to defeat any and all legislation coming from the Obama White House. This cynicism is the problem with politics, not the solution. Residents of Los Angeles deserve better and should demand more from an editorial board that claims to be a serious news outlet. There are very real objections to the new START Treaty -- but you won't read about those concerns on the editorial page of the LA Times.