The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

More '08 Blogs

Archives

More Campaign '08

Politics Newsletter (M-F)

Multimedia

The Presidential Field

Calendar / Events

Interaction

Polls

John McCain

McCain Calls for New Arms Treaty With Russia


Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaks to an audience at the Univesity of Denver on Tuesday, May 27, 2008. (Associated Press)

By Glenn Kessler
DENVER -- Sen. John McCain today called for negotiating a new arms control agreement with Russia that would further reduce nuclear weapons, staking out a position on nonproliferation that is somewhat at odds with the policies of the Bush administration.

The presumptive Republican nominee said that if he became president he would offer "a vision in which the United States returns to a tradition of innovative thinking, broad-minded internationalism and determined diplomacy, backed by America's great and enduring power to lead."

As a senator, McCain has not been not a leader on nonproliferation issues. Today's speech appears to be an effort to sketch out a vision that is distinct from both President Bush and the leading Democrats. He appeared to place the prevention of the use of nuclear weapons, not their elimination, as his main goal.

McCain cited former president Ronald Reagan's dream of eliminating nuclear weapons. But, strikingly, he did not embrace proposals for doing so that have been offered by the so-called Gang of Four -- former secretaries of state George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, former defense secretary William Perry and former senator Sam Nunn. Both leading Democratic candidates have touted their support for the proposals, with Obama co-sponsoring a bill with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) that recommends many of the measures.

In his speech this morning. McCain called for the elimination of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator -- a nuclear bunker-busting weapon backed by Bush that he said "does not make strategic or political sense." Funding for the project has already been canceled.

The crowd of a few hundred people at the University of Denver was largely silent during McCain's address, a rather dry discussion of nuclear policy with no obvious applause lines. His speech was interrupted several times by war protestors, but McCain earned his biggest cheer when he declared in response, "I will never surrender in Iraq."

Other aspects of McCain's speech were vague. He said that "it is my hope to move as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force" of nuclear weapons, but gave no goals or targets. He appeared more open to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty than Bush, but did not say he would support it, only that he "would keep an open mind about future developments." And while he called for negotiating a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty "to end production of the most dangerous nuclear materials," McCain did not say he would support a verifiable treaty, which would go beyond the Bush administration position.

Posted at 12:37 PM ET on May 27, 2008  | Category:  John McCain
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: McCain Breaks with Bush Over North Korea | Next: Obama's Uncle and the Liberation of Auschwitz


Add The Trail to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I am CONVINCED that McCain's choice of veep is going to say a lot about how he plans to attack Obama on foreign policy this summer:

http://www.236.com/blog/w/lee_camp/mccains_short_list_for_vp_leak_6780.php

Posted by: lordflashheart | May 28, 2008 2:27 PM

John McCain is an old fool with old foolish idea's on War and Victory. He is unbalanced and a very dangerous person. We better all pray that this old fool does not end up in the oval office. Sadly, the not too bright NASCAR crowd loves war hero's, and once the spin doctors do their thing, these morons will be out in full force waving the John "Wayne" McCain flag!

Posted by: William Dollar | May 28, 2008 9:04 AM

McAnus has his head so far up Bush's ass that he can even see the bicycle seat.

Posted by: oldman&theC | May 28, 2008 1:43 AM

Exactly why would Russia cae to negotiate another arms treaty with George's echo? John McCain and his party stood by and did nothing as george W Bush repudiated the ABM treaty so he could go ahead and waste a lot of money on a misle system that doesn't work and would be useless even if it did, just to keep his rabid neocons happy. To do so, he thumbed his nose at Vladimir Putin (George looked into his soul, and apparently thought he saw a shnook.) With absolutely no credibility, and a record of arrogant statements that even george can't top, Just what would John bring to any negotiating table that Russia, China, or anyone else would care to listen to?

And, of course, if John negotiates it, HE, or any other Republican, can repudiate it just as quickly as the ABM treaty.

Your dowry, from George, awaits you, John. Legacy, and all that.

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | May 27, 2008 10:11 PM

The USA moust be stronger than ever before, because there are a bunch of crazy out there that wants to eliminate us, we need a smart and strong mind to leed us, to be able to survive.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 8:21 PM

If Hillary had said her uncle had liberated Auschwitz during WWII the democrats would be all over her for saying it. Obama says his uncle did that during the war and not one word from them about it. This is a perfect example of how stupid democrats are and why McCain will 'easily' become our next President! So dems keep up your usual good work! We love ya for it!

Posted by: jo | May 27, 2008 5:30 PM

Yeah, Right! Sure he will in the next "wet dream" he has .... Hey Cindy, next time your in Texas gimme a call, babe! I'll show you waht a Real Man feels like... certainly not like your lod, shriveled up hubby , Johnny McNUmbNutts ...

McPain is a LOSER!!!

Posted by: ricknhouston | May 27, 2008 8:20 PM

The man is trying to change the subject in America from matters of survival and death such as the economic, health insurance and education to meaningless gun control with Russia who is no longer even an adversary. Just anything to distract us from the real issues of our time, the issues that only Obama can address. What a loser!

Posted by: Helen | May 27, 2008 8:12 PM

Any bonafied nation on Earth should be able to access nuclear science if that nation chooses to harness the power of the atom to provide power for its citizens and economy. If a country does weaponize atomic fuel then it should register weapons grade nuclear fuel under treaty.

But that's not the case some countries still maintain the ruse they don't have atomic WMD's but in fact they do.

Ok... play that game, but for the nuclear tipped nations sitting the UN security council to allow that kind double standard is wrong. Either you apply the law equally for all nations or don't bother to write an NPT treaty.
The U.S. in particular plays this double standard calling nations out nefariously accessing nuclear WMD's when in reality it made the blunder in Iraq and can't even keep track of its own nuke weapons.

Posted by: zippo | May 27, 2008 7:52 PM

Maybe the United States could hire better translators in Farsi and Russian. As a former resident of Moscow and fluent in Russian and Farsi it kills me to hear these material misstatements by members of the media and the government about statements leaders of both countries make. Not that I think those leaders are right but please, don't create statements they never made.

Posted by: JS | May 27, 2008 7:12 PM

Ron Paul is the answer. Who would Thomas Jefferson vote for? Ron Paul

Posted by: bill | May 27, 2008 7:11 PM

When is apathetic America going to wake up?
Ron Paul is the ONLY answer!

Posted by: Michael S. Murphy | May 27, 2008 6:56 PM

Ron Paul for the win. The man is a pure genius. All you nanny staters and national security mo mo's need to wake up.

Posted by: Ron Paul | May 27, 2008 6:03 PM

90% of these comments are dissenting view points. You'd never know that from the MSM. The Media Propaganda machine is dying, the net is alive

Posted by: Gotta love it. | May 27, 2008 6:02 PM

I think the candidate who can convey a willingness to act without regard to polling is the natural winner.

Too bad life wasn't that simple. Vote Ron Paul!

Posted by: Mikey | May 27, 2008 5:53 PM

1.USA needs to stop spending billions dollars on helping Russia.
Russia has surplus, not deficit in budget.
2. Situation in Iraq is really go to Victory. Look the good site-
http://www.longwarjournal.org

Posted by: Serge | May 27, 2008 5:38 PM

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! Spare me with crap!!!!

All this would mean is yet ANOTHER treaty we would break.

With the missile shield going on suddenly we want to reduce? Do we think Russia and China are that stupid? This is just another political posturing antic by McCain.

Ask him if this means putting and end to the missile shield in Europe to begin talks? I guarantee you... no.

Posted by: Greg | May 27, 2008 5:34 PM

Let's see:
The United States has violated the NPT [Non-Proliferation-Treaty] at least a thousand times. Iran has yet to violate even one provision. Good enough reason for McCain to re-write that agreement.
The "key words" in his speech were an insistence that nations "end production of the most dangerous nuclear materials," like those running nuclear power plants.
But, I'm sure he intends a treaty that ignores Israel's 120+ nuclear bombs, while forbidding even one Iranian power plant.

Posted by: Westmiller | May 27, 2008 5:31 PM

If Hillary had said her uncle had liberated Auschwitz during WWII the democrats would be all over her for saying it. Obama says his uncle did that during the war and not one word from them about it. This is a perfect example of how stupid democrats are and why McCain will 'easily' become our next President! So dems keep up your usual good work! We love ya for it!

Posted by: jo | May 27, 2008 5:30 PM

LOL! :-D

John McCain is soooooo One-Dimensional. Military, Military and yes folks, let's talk about the "Military"!

Oh, did he mention "Defense"?

Let's change the Subject! Offense!

Meanwhile, the World dies on the Vine due to Congress STILL not getting a Damned Thing accomplished about Refineries, Back-Up supplies for impending HURRICANE coming, or anything else w3e need soooo desperately-Like Federal Agents to investigate Employment Verification of Worker Eligibility or ID Fraud! :-(

Waiting,

Waiting,

Waiting, :-(

Waiting...

One of these YEARS, McClown is going to get Mitt Romney and his Economic Brilliance on the scene.

Till then, the ENTIRE WORLD, is;

Waiting... :-(

Posted by: SAINT---The | May 27, 2008 5:26 PM

Ah, So mcCain wants to appease the Russians and Chinese. Isn't that what they tried to paint Obama with whne he said he would talk with our enemies?

So either now McCain is an appeaser as well or neither one is.

Posted by: Roberto | May 27, 2008 5:20 PM

"Barack Obama's dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation. It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there's no way Obama's statement yesterday can be true. Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief," said RNC Press Secretary Alex Conant.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 5:13 PM

A strong offense is the first line of security. We have that, and shrinking our nuclear arsenal does not advance our security, unless it is in exchange for the second line of security, a good defense. This is where the short (foreign-based missile), medium (air/space-based laser), and long-ranged (home-based missile) missile defense system makes sense. If their nuclear power is required, then go nuclear! Peace through power.

Posted by: landen99 | May 27, 2008 5:10 PM

America needs to attack Iran, Russia, Latin America, Korea and China. And privatize all inside government program within the US; then build a wall on the south border.... And destroy all union workers. Yours truly another Corporate Neo-Con....

Thank you
Ron Reagan.

Posted by: CEO - USA | May 27, 2008 5:04 PM

more wars for israel

Posted by: anti-antifa | May 27, 2008 5:04 PM

McCain wants another treaty with Russia?
Somehow, I don't think the Russians will want a treaty after Bush broke the last one. After all the American government has a nast habbit of breaking treaties, just ask the Native Americans.

Posted by: Stefan | May 27, 2008 5:03 PM

Wow - all of these comments by libs is making me want to support McCain! Stop It! He isn't Republican. He is nearly as far left as many of you. Stop telling lies that he is Republican. Name only, name only. Geesh.

Posted by: Bud | May 27, 2008 5:03 PM

Ridiculous. McCain has a 0 rating by SANE for his past votes on the military and nuclear arsenals.

He offers no new ideas yet gives no specifics.

He still labors under the false belief that the majority of Americans are to ignorant to understand his record and the issues.

Posted by: Deward Bowles | May 27, 2008 5:01 PM

how retarded. the reason the bush administration shied away from its dictator-like international affairs approach is because it DID NOT WORK and left us with the WORST global relationships ever.

yeah that's something i'd want to see more of. way to go mcmoron.

Posted by: jencm | May 27, 2008 4:59 PM

...McCain for 2008. Real Americans will vote for McCain!!!

Need to kick off another war with Iran. My 5 SUV's need oil along with my stock in the oil and arms industry.... Come on Listen to the Money talk!!!

Posted by: DICKCHENEY | May 27, 2008 4:53 PM

You could add a few more contries to the top, and leave nothing but America on the bottom, and their odds STILL won't look as good as ours! American can't be beat by open war, only by terrorism.

For the record, Chavez is a raving lunatic - Hillary should be joking (but really not joking) about assassinating HIM.

Posted by: GoIdaho | May 27, 2008 4:52 PM

Nuke treaties have been nothing in the past but a way to limit the United States and allow our enemies to extend their arsenals.

McCain is so busy trying to please everyone that he fails to stand on anything. His compromises that ended several Republican issues - virtually brand him as opposition - it's like we have nothing but a choice of 3 Democrats in the field right now... NONE of them good choices either.

Sigh... where did all the good conservative Republicans go? Maybe we can get Sean Hannity to actually run for office.

Posted by: Dan M. | May 27, 2008 4:52 PM

Politcs makes everything complicated when it's not really the case. A GI Bill before the war is over just doesn't make sense. After WW II, Korea and Vietnam we had soldiers returning to civilain life. The GI Bills assisted that greatly. The military was shrinking and that helped. Today even with the much-maligned "stop loss" it is dificult to keep all those needed until the job is done. A new incentive to leave the military is just not what we need now. When the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan allows for signigicant troop reductions, then is the time for the Thank You of a new GI Bill appropriate. McCain is just using pure military common sense.

Posted by: Russ | May 27, 2008 4:44 PM

Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Palestine

- vs -

America, Iraq, and Israel


Those odds don't look too goo.

Posted by: WWIII Yeah! | May 27, 2008 4:40 PM

Would you be less likely to vote for John McCain knowing that he had homosexual relations with other men while being held captive in a prison camp?

Posted by: Karl Rove | May 27, 2008 4:38 PM

Why should Russia negotiate with McCain at all? Russia has plenty of money from oil and natural gas sales and can afford to upgrade its nuclear weapons now. America's money will be spent in the Iraq war which McCain favors, so Russia already knows we can't afford to match their spending on nuclear weapons.

Posted by: ggordon | May 27, 2008 4:38 PM

Never surrender!

Check the headlines, the insurgence is dying.

Posted by: Robert NYC | May 27, 2008 4:38 PM

Stop waisting your time looking for foreign treats while our worst enemy is already here, just take a look at the fuel pump!!!

Instead of investing in stupidities like Irak, try to invest in R&D to reduce the oil dependency.

Posted by: H. Duhart | May 27, 2008 4:38 PM

A P P E A S E R !

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 4:36 PM

That McCain, what a laugh riot.

"I will never surrender in Iraq!"

as if: the only option to his wasteful bloody mess is surrender

Some big thinker he. He will lose badly, despite the coming corporate campaign donations, the inevitable swift-boating of Obama, and the various strategies and tactics of the evil genius Rove.

He's empty, reduced now to flip-flopping and pandering to reach his goal.

Posted by: Adrian near Seattle | May 27, 2008 4:34 PM

How many more american GIs have to die because of the present administrations mistake of invading Iraq?

Posted by: D Fisher | May 27, 2008 4:31 PM

I don't think now is the time to make America any weaker, real or imagined.

Posted by: Mike | May 27, 2008 4:25 PM

Mike Gibbons:

The GI Bill after WWII was during just a bit different times with no large military presense needed globally and a glut of servicemen coming back to the States. I'm not sure how the Naval Academy worked back in McCain's day, but you can currently drop out anytime during your first two years and incur no military service obligation -- after that time, you are required to serve on active duty in an enlisted status, usually for two to four years -- alternatively, separated former Midshipmen can reimburse the government for their educational expenses, though the sum is often in excess of $200,000.

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2008 3:16 PM

I thought we should only interact with our allies, the ones that don't engage in "terrorist activities" or human right abuses? Not that Russia is an enemy... at least no worse than China, Mexico, Columbia...

Posted by: Comment | May 27, 2008 3:11 PM

I think McCain is guilty of not thinking things through he wants to act like a peace nix when he's been a war monger all his career. He didn't vote yea or nay on the GI bill, he forgot that he went to the Naval Academy before serving a day in the Military, he received free room and board, tuition,uniforms and was paid before he served a day in the military and all he had to do was agree that he would serve a year for every year of school that he received there was no guarantee that he would be a career officer, so why is it so bad that a guy who has served three years in the Military probably two tours in Iraq to receive only tuition for his service 'and that's all he gets, he doesn't receive housing or food allowance. After three years of dedication to protect the country doesn't he think we owe them that much. Guys who served WWII, Korea and Vietnam received Veterans sponsored tuition all you needed was an honorable discharge with no time limit required. Does he really care about the troops or is he just blowing smoke.

Posted by: Mike Gibbons | May 27, 2008 3:09 PM

Mitchell in New York:

Do you think that McCain was towing the GOP line as to immigration and campaign finance reform too?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2008 2:57 PM

For the record, I drew the line at Hillary invoking the RFK assassination as any justification to stay in the race. No candidate should even joke about something like that.

Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2008 2:55 PM

McCain is not going to be able to place much light between himself and Bush because of the Iraq War and his need for Bush's help in raising money for the campaign. On a list of a dozen reasons for why McCain will not win, I have as #1 and #2:

1. The McBush factor. McCain's support of the Iraq War will make it impossible for him to break from Bush, the most unpopular president in living memory. The photo/video of McCain hugging and being kissed by Bush will become increasingly embedded in the collective consciousness of the American people as the months roll on.

2. The Republican factor. Yes, McCain is a Republican. He will not be able to deny this fact. Currently, this is not the best party to have behind you in a push to the White House. Witness the recent loss of three traditionally Republican congressional seats and the declining number of Americans willing to identify themselves as Republicans. And then there are the comments of Congressman Tom Davis. "The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006" (NY Times, May 15th, 2008).

The rest of the list is too long for a comment. See "A Dozen Reasons Why McCain Won't Win: Money-Back Guarantee"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Mitchell in New York | May 27, 2008 2:54 PM

Duck, Mr. McCain!!!

More sniper fire from Bosnia.

Mr. McCain, a call from Hamas leaders...They said you told them you'd have to sit down and meet with them back in 2006 without no preconditions so they're ready to talk. Any comment................

Mr. McCain not only did you not vote for the updated G.I. Bill but you didn't even bother to show up snubbing the same veterans you claim to support......Was the ribs and chicken too good at the barbecue with you and Mittens Romney to get away from?

Posted by: 2pacolypse | May 27, 2008 2:42 PM

You can try to run but you can't hide away from Dubya John McCain. You can't lie and flip flip flop your way to the White House. The Iraq War won't save you or be your meal ticket. You are glued to Bush like Babe Ruth is glued to the Yankees/Red Sox. Trying to run away now makes you look like Benedict McCain. And nobody will elect a traitor, not even your own party. Why not pick Joe Lieberman on your ticket then you'll have a ticket of traitors.

Posted by: 2pacolypse | May 27, 2008 2:39 PM

Today I McFlip, tomorrow I McFlop.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 2:36 PM

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2008 2:18 PM: "P.S. to BOB:

Just as long as you remember it is illegal to threaten to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President-Elect."

And I bet you probably thought it was okay all the same that a Fox News commentator, Hillary and Huckabee all made assassination jokes about Obama.

Saying "Boo" to ruffle an old man's heart and joking about pointing a gun at Obama or implying a death wish via assassination are two different things entirely ...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 2:34 PM

Did he explain how he's going to get Russia to negotiate this treaty at the same time that he's kicking them out of the G8?

Posted by: Adam | May 27, 2008 2:19 PM

Courtney H:

McCain did NOT vote against the GI Bill -- he simply did not show up to vote -- he offered his own GI Bill though. Also, a couple centrist Bills (the GOP hated them) were McCain-Feingold re: campaign finance reform and McCain-Kennedy re: immigration reform.

P.S. to BOB:

Just as long as you remember it is illegal to threaten to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President-Elect ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2008 2:18 PM


mccain is going to try to win this election by the bush tactics.. trying to frighten the american people.

do you know what someone should do?

sneak up behind mccain someday and say....

.... BOO!

Posted by: BOB | May 27, 2008 2:02 PM


it's tempting to say that mccain is flip-flopping as he changes positions.

but the truth is... he just doesn't remember what he said yesterday.

he can't help it.

Posted by: BOB | May 27, 2008 1:59 PM

Arms treaties are fine, but so are nuclear weapons. A good solid nuclear weapon in the hands of both N Korea and Iran will do more to bring about world peace though by placing participants to peace on an equal footing.

Posted by: Maddogg | May 27, 2008 1:59 PM

Again, these are only words. What policy proposals has Mccain ever supported to enact the winks and nods to centrism he professes. He goes to New Orleans but voted against the Katrina restoration bill. He talks about the enviroment, but he was absent on most major environmental laws. He claims to be against torture, but he voted against the law that would have made it illegal. He claims to support the troops, but voted against the new GI Bill.

Despite not providing any major benefits to the public, his plans will lead to far greater deficits than anything proposed by the Democrats.

Mccain knows that if he keeps spouting reasonable sounding rhetoric, the media won't bother to illuminate his shoddy record on any of these issues.

Posted by: Courtney H | May 27, 2008 1:58 PM

Flip - Flop McCain. Now he is for it, before he was against it. No one knows what McCain stands for. McCain is a Bum.

Posted by: Bob | May 27, 2008 1:57 PM

McCain is a moderate seeking the middle ground. Maintain security but with more realistic measures. Obama is too far to the left on security who would take actions that weaken the United States against very real enemies.

Posted by: N. Otter | May 27, 2008 1:55 PM

This coming from the Presidential candidate who says when he sees (now Prime Minister) Putin he only sees KGB!

McCain where is your legislature votes and backing the elimination of nuclear proliferation?

McCain you may fool some of the weak-minded and uneducated voters out there, but you will never fool me.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: AJ | May 27, 2008 1:45 PM

A significantly smaller force of nuclear weapons would be a good thing morally (and save us money too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 27, 2008 12:54 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

© 2008 The Washington Post Company