Click HERE for
The Kerry/Edwards Files
-at-
The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection
Posted on 08/01/2004 5:23:49 PM PDT by FairOpinion
James P. Rubin, senior foreign-policy adviser to the campaign, sat down in Detroit with NEWSWEEK's Richard Wolffe to explain what would be different under a Kerry administration. Excerpts:
John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. "The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Logic????
Current US/Bush policy:
"The U.S. government has long been worried that Tehran is using its nuclear-energy program to develop nuclear weapons, and has therefore repeatedly urged Moscow to halt work on the reactor it is building for the Iranians at Bushehr."
RUSSIA AND IRAN: WHO IS STRONG-ARMING WHOM?
The Bush Administration is trying to keep Russia from giving nuclear fuel to Iran, Kerry says, if Russia won't give it to Iran, we will.
Is Kerry SANE???
Nope!!
But did you hear that he was in Vietnam for four months?
Democrats--We're Against Nuclear Power, Unless You're a Terrorist-Sponsoring Nation!
Why isn't GW Bush running this quote in his campaign advertising on TV 24 and 7?
For that matter, is Bush even running TV ads (IA resident here, haven't seen one.)
Is the Kerry campaign aware that even Iran has given up maintaining the ridiculous facade that they are developing only a nuclear energy program? I know Kerry has been skipping his national security briefings to attend fund raising events, but somebody should alert him the mullahs have repeated stated they are working on a nuclear bomb.
Sounds fine to me. If this flip fails, all Kerry has to do is flop to the Iranians, and ask them to give the nukes back.
Kerry was in Vietnam?
[And no, he is NOT sane. And neither is the almost 50% of the electorate that is planning to vote for him] God help us all.
Idiot. I almost miss Gore. Yes, Gore was a shrieking psycho, but he DID have core beliefs. Yes, they were screwey, but he actually did take stands on issues.
This guy is just a roaring ( )*( ).
bttt
Like the commercial where the guy says, "But, I did stay in a Holiday Inn express last night." Its the answer to every question.
From Kerry's DNC acceptance speech
"We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation – to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world."
Evidently, he does not consider Iran to be dangerous.
Kerry wants to make sure Iran doesn't acquire nukes "surreptitiously", so he'll hand them nukes, instead.
The DNC wants you on their policy team. You've got potential. LOL
Another Kerry stand on Foreign policy:
"I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world."
--- Kerry, Foreign Policy Speech
Georgetown University, Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
Apparently, according to Kerry, "alarming potential foes" is a bad thing!
And more on Kerry's foreign policy:
"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
--- Kerry, Inteview with Harvard Crimson, Feb. 18, 1970
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185
===
"We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration."
--- Kerry, Foreign Policy Speech
Georgetown University, Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
=====
"And in the first hundred days in office, I will go to the United Nations -- I will go in the first weeks -- and I will travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States of America has rejoined the community of nations. "
I will treat the United Nations as a full partner -- not as an obstruction to get by -- not only in the war on terror, but in combating other common enemies, like AIDS and global poverty. We must seek not only to renew the mandate of the U.N., but to reform its operations and revitalize its capacity. And if I am president, the United Nations will be seen as the asset that it is, not a liability to a safer America. "
--- Kerry, Speech at Center for Foreign Relations, Dec. 3, 2003
http://www.cfr.org/pub6576//making_america_secure_again_setting_the_right_course_for_foreign_policy.php
If elected, John Kerry will be sitting down with the leaders of our major friends and allies and demanding action. But he will do that in a way that expresses understanding for other people's points of view, that involves listening and leading rather than alienating, and that involves old-fashioned persuasion and an appreciation for other cultures and values.
These nitwits are stuck in a 9/10 mindset.
"these 2 spew crap constantly."
Hep me. Hep me. I can't keep up.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but he seems to be promising Iran access to *conventional* fuel, thereby eliminating their excuse for building a nuclear reactor.
Go to the link and read the entire paragraph.
It's all about nuclear fuel.
That is what Russia is giving Iran, so Kerry says, if Russia won't give it to them, we will.
Also note Kerry specifically says that he doesn't want Iran to acquire fule "surreptitiously". Why would he care if Iran acquires conventional fuel surreptitiously?
It's clear they are talking about nuclear fuel.
I did follow the link. One of us is reading this wrong...
I wanna play poker against Kerry. What a rube.
Bunny suit John says "all in" and finds out Iran isn't bluffing.
If ever there was a no brainer campaign ad for the GOP this is it. It's literally there for the taking.
Could it be KERRY doesn't know the friggn difference between conventional and nuclear?
Just like handing out condoms, the "they're going to do it anyway" strategy.
While Iran is sitting on all that oil, they can't legitimately say that they need "energy".
Kerry isn't saying that we want to prevent Iran from getting nuclear fuel, PERIOD, only that they don't get it "surreptitiously".
Russia is going to provide them with nuclear fuel. Russian had not said anything about providing Iran with conventionla fuel.
We will provide Iran, with conventional fuel, like what, oil?
No way! Kerry is a vet and served in Nam? Boy I sure am glad I use this site I would have never heard this in the main stream press.
How very Carteresque of him.
More of the same from the appeasement party.
Maybe the Iranians would go for giant windmills on Kharg Island instead...
Campaing ad:
"John Kerry's advisors have suggested GIVING nuclear fuel to Iran, a rogue nation that sponsors terrorsim at the state level. He think's this is a good idea? Too frightening to believe."
DAILY EXPRESS
Engagement Announcement
by Lawrence F. Kaplan
TNR Online Post date 07.23.04
At times, Kerry seems to be taking his cues from Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential run, sounding as though he's blasting his opponent from the right while he quietly offers up solutions from the left. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of Iran, where, when you strip away Kerry's hard-boiled rhetoric about preventing the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon, what the candidate offers is a facsimile of the Clinton-era policy of "engagement." Likening the Islamic Republic to a much less dangerous threat from long ago, Kerry seeks to "explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam." Hence, Kerry says he "would support talking with all elements of the government," or, as his principal foreign policy adviser Rand Beers has elaborated, the United States must engage Iran's "hard-line element"--this, while the candidate tells The Washington Post he will downplay democracy promotion in the region. In fact, as part of this normalization process, Kerry has recommended hammering out a deal with Teheran a la the Clinton administration's doomed bargain with North Korea, whereby the United States would aid the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for safeguards that would presumably keep the program peaceful. To sweeten the deal, he has offered to throw in members of the People's Mujahedeen, the Iranian opposition group being held under lock and key by U.S. forces in Iraq.
Iran claims it is building nukes strictly as power plants, not as a means of creating weapons-grade material. They justify this by saying that their oil won't hold out forever, and that they want to have an alternative energy source is place.
This is a an absurd lie, of course, but this is the excuse they are using.
Read this passage again:
Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it."
Now, I realise that this is ambiguous, but I'm reading this to mean that Kerry will call their bluff by assuring them that they will always have access to convential fuel.
Iran and the Election
By Pejman Yousefzadeh
07/28/2004
If a Kerry Administration decides to try once again to engage Iran, it will be giving the hardline rulers of the Islamic regime every reason to believe that the United States will do nothing to stand on the side of human rights in Iran, and on the side of a pro-democracy movement that identifies so strongly with America and the West. Meanwhile, the regime itself will be strengthened by being able to deal with the world's most powerful democratic republic, and will be able to use its newfound prestige to try to completely snuff out the pro-democracy movement. You see, the mullahs will tell the pro-democracy demonstrators, even the Americans accept our legitimacy and wish to do business with us. The international community -- led by America -- will welcome us anew and will want to deal with us as the valid rulers of Iran. Your cause is hopeless.
If John Kerry and his foreign policy team really believe that they will be able to negotiate with a country whose supreme ruler is effectively held hostage to his own reactionary stances, they are being quite naïve -- assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.
In The Prince, Machiavelli wrote that
"Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective."
The "threat of punishment" would do more to coerce Iran to act within international norms than would the premature bestowal of legitimacy on Iran's hardline rulers. But John Kerry's proposal to negotiate with Iran would undercut the regime's more democratic opponents, and reward the regime for its reprehensible policies -- and at a time when the regime are still quite weak, and vulnerable, no less.
If that doesn't leave you scratching your head in confusion, nothing will.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/072804F.html
This quote is excellent campaign fodder.
For that matter, is Bush even running TV ads (IA resident here, haven't seen one.)
Indeed neither have I
And how will we assure that Iran always have access to conventional fuel? Are we going to ship Texas Tea to Kharg Island? Obviously he was discussing nuclear fuel. Particularly in the context of the Russians currently offering them nuclear, not conventional, fuel.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!!!
Yeah, but he has three purple hearts!
So, what's the problem? Nukes for Iran? SURE!!
I realize there is some ambiguity, but not really. You just don't follow the liberal logic. ;)
Read the story of Clinton giving N. Korea nuclear reactors.
This is exactly the same: Clinton building N. Korea nuclear reactor "to keep them from developing nukes".
Timeline: North Korea's nuclear weapons development
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/07/nkorea.timeline.nuclear/
1994: North Korea and U.S. sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.
Sept. 17, 1999: U.S. President Bill Clinton eases economic sanctions against North Korea.
December 1999: A U.S.-led consortium signs a US$4.6 billion contract for two safer, Western-developed light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea.
MOre evidence that he means nuclear fuel.
He is referring to the German and French and they are currently discussing NUCLEAR fuel with Iran, NOT conventional.
"he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it."
====
Iran rebuffs Europe on atom plans
http://www.iht.com/articles/532131.htm
"An Iranian government spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, speaking to reporters on Sunday, said Iran was continuing to talk to Britain, France and Germany on the use of nuclear energy. Washington strongly suspects Iran is using a civilian nuclear program as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons project."
On Saturday, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi of Iran confirmed that his country had resumed building nuclear centrifuges, though it had not resumed enriching uranium.
====
Any notion, that if we give "energy" to Iran, they will suspend their nuclear ambitions is sheer insanity.
I doubt that Iran is looking to develop nuclear weapons from plutonium derived from fuel irradiated in a commercial reactor. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a technical point of view.
The real issue deals with why Iran is developing centrifuges and heavy water facilities. With a two-unit commercial nuclear power program, it doesn't need the centrifuges to enrich fuel for the reactors. The only conceivable reason to have centrifuges is to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels (considerably in excess of the enrichment useful in a nuclear power plant), and, in fact, we have recovered uranium samples from Iran which are enriched much more than can be used in a commercial reactor.
Similarly, there is no reason to be developing heavy water facilities. The commercial reactors in Iran are Russian VVERs, which is a type of light water reactor similar to the western pressurized water reactor. Heavy water has no use in such a reactor. A heavy water reactor, though, is quite useful for making weapon-grade plutonium.
To make a short story long, Kerry's offer to provide nuclear fuel to Iran is completely irrelevant. Iran's commercial nuclear program is simply a cover for its weapons program, as anyone with a lick of sense can tell. Of course, that qualification rules out Kerry.
Kerry Courts Disaster in Iran
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14422
The "threat of punishment" would do more to coerce Iran to act within international norms than would the premature bestowal of legitimacy on Iran's hardline rulers. But John Kerry's proposal to negotiate with Iran would undercut the regime's more democratic opponents, and reward the regime for its reprehensible policies -- and at a time when the regime are still quite weak, and vulnerable, no less.
Mon Dieu, a minkey just fleu from my ass! Sacre bleu, encore! Goddamn where's the Lomotil!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.