What the dumbass retard leftwing guy didn't cut and paste was the REST OF THE STORY...which I pasted earlier from the same story. Obama did well more then was neccesary. So please go tie a hope and change flag around your lib neck and hang yourself. Your a typical Lib...all heart and no facts. U voted for a color.....good job asshat.
Update: Via Teresa Kopec on Twitter, State Dept spokesman P. J. Crowley tweets, “Contrary to @TelegraphNews claim, we carried forward requirement to notify#Russia about U.S.-UK nuclear cooperation from the 1991 treaty.” But if that were true, why did the UK refuse permission to do it again?
Update II: Doug Mataconis updates OTB with this slightly more extensive pushback from Crowley at Time:
This is bunk. Under the 1991 START Treaty, the U.S. agreed to notify Russia of specific nuclear cooperation with the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of SLBM’s [submarine launch ballistic missiles] to the UK, or their maintenance or modernization. This is under an existing pattern of cooperation throughout that treaty and is expected to continue under New START. We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.
If that’s all this is, then Doug says it’s really no big deal. But did the previous agreement include the serial numbers of Trident MIRVs, indicating the specific number of such missiles in the British inventory? And again, if this is just a continuation of the 1991 START process, then why did the UK object to it?
Update III: The UK is quietly backing the Obama administration, Jake Tapper reports:
A knowledgeable source with the British government, speaking anonymously because his government has a policy of not commenting on Wikileaks, says his understanding of the policy conforms with that asserted by the State Department.
Update IV: Just FYI, here’s the part of the memo leaked by Wikileaks, emphasis mine:
10. (S) Orlov asked about the U.S. practice of transferring Trident II missiles to the United Kingdom (UK) in reference to the Russian-proposed agreed statement on the subject. Trout pointed out that most of the provisions contained in the proposed agreed statement were already covered by other sections of the treaty. He noted that notifications existed for the transfer and return of missiles to and from a third party. Additionally, he pointed out, the Russian Federation will receive unique identifiers for each of the missiles transferred to the UK, which was more information than was disclosed under START. Trout acknowledged that the proposal to send a notification of a UK flight test was not covered under START nor had it been included as part of this treaty but argued that this was the flight test of a missile owned by a third country. He said the United States had no legal responsibility for such a notification. Trout said he assumed the UK would send a notice to mariners and airmen prior to any flight test.
