… the language of the treaty — combined with Obama’s softness on the Russians, the Russians’ toughness toward Obama, Obama’s previous pro-Russia moves at the expense of Poles and Czechs, and Obama’s traditionally tepid support of missile defense — is not reassuring.

By Paul Kengor at American Thinker

EXCERPTS:

The treaty is notoriously complicated, and trying to interpret it is a sticky business. I agree with those observers who fear the treaty might jeopardize missile defense — largely due to Obama’s strange eagerness to assuage the likes of Vladimir Putin.

Reagan also started missile defense and rejected Russians’ (Gorbachev’s) pleas to reduce missiles at the expense of missile defense. That was what Reykjavik was all about.

For Barack Obama, call it the anti-Reykjavik.

Sadly, some Reagan administration members, including George Shultz, are arguing that Ronald Reagan would have backed this treaty. They cannot logically assert that. As one of Reagan’s closest aides told me last week, with unusual anger: “That’s a damned lie. You can only say that if you haven’t read the treaty.”

Of course, that’s why missile defense so appealed to Ronald Reagan. Mere minutes after his speech announcing SDI in March 1983, Reagan wrote in his diary that he didn’t expect his “dream” to come true for at least a couple of decades. Well, after a couple of decades, the dream was bearing fruit in no less than the heart of the former Communist Bloc. Ronald Reagan would have loved that.

But Reagan’s dream has become a nightmare under Obama.

FULL ARTICLE

Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Interested In Further Reading? Click Here