Bush decides to help terrorists

[Tricky]

Is it a lie or just a flip flop? In any case, Bush swore that a "top priority of his administration to prevent the production and trafficking in nuclear materials."

Now it appears he has reversed that stance, withdrawing support for the all-important verification portion of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

For several years the United States and other nations have been pursuing the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. At a meeting in Geneva this week, the Bush administration told other nations it supported a treaty, but not verification.

Administration officials said they made the decision after concluding such a system would cost too much, require overly intrusive inspections and wouldn't guarantee compliance. They declined to explain how they believed U.S. security would be harmed by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.

Overly intrusive to whom? US arms makers? The funny thing about this is that it was buried way at the back of the paper. While Kerry's voting history gets page one headlines, Bush's outright flip flops (although calling them baldfaced lies wouldn't be stretching things) involving the most serious issues one could possibly imagine, are hardly even mentioned.

How much could these inspections cost? Would they be more than the cost of 911? More than the war in Iraq? Is there anyone here who buys this "it's too expensive" line? What possible scenario other than covering for his wealthy buddies can anyone suggest for this action? This is yet another example (like Kosovo) of how the Bush administration forgets any pretense of morality in international dealings.

 

[crackmonkey]

This is the first I've hread of this, so I can only guess about the motivations. I'd guess it would be one of two things:

1) Either it would mandate monitoring of US nuke production and labs,
or
2) We can only monitor what we know, and this window of ignorance allows things like the secret N Korean nuke lab that produced a nuke under the noses of inspectors.

 

[Tricky]

This is the first I've hread of this, so I can only guess about the motivations. I'd guess it would be one of two things:

1) Either it would mandate monitoring of US nuke production and labs,

Yeah. God forbid that international rules should apply to us.

2) We can only monitor what we know, and this window of ignorance allows things like the secret N Korean nuke lab that produced a nuke under the noses of inspectors.

One reason for the treaty is to make it more difficult to pull off such a trick.

Arms control specialists reacted negatively, saying the change in U.S. position will dramatically weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Although, admittedly, another purpose is:

...to lure countries such as Pakistan, India and Israel into accepting some oversight of their nuclear production programs.

Both of those seem like worthwhile goals to me, and cheaper than invading countries after they have nucular materials (or suspected nuclear programs).

 

[Rob Lister]

Both of those seem like worthwhile goals to me, and cheaper than invading countries after they have nucular materials (or suspected nuclear programs).

If you're really interested in understanding why the Bush administation took the position it did, perhaps this snip...

The announcement, they said, also virtually kills a 10-year international effort to lure countries such as Pakistan, India and Israel into accepting some oversight of their nuclear production programs.

...combined with the last paragraph...

The State Department later said an internal review concluded that an inspection regime "would have been so extensive that it could compromise key signatories' core national security interests and so costly that many countries will be hesitant to accept it."

...might give you a hint (rung-up).

 

[Tricky]

If you're really interested in understanding why the Bush administation took the position it did, perhaps this snip...



...combined with the last paragraph...



...might give you a hint (rung-up).

Considering how little the Bush administration seems to care for international opinion, using the possibility that "many countries will be hesitant to accept it" as an excuse for backing down from the ten-year effort is, at best, disingenious. Isn't this the same administration that is willing to go to war because of suspected nuclear materials trafficking? Now all of a sudden it gets cold feet because some countries may not agree?

I don't see how you can give their incredibly lame excuse any sort of serious consideration.

 

[Rob Lister]

Considering how little the Bush administration seems to care for international opinion, using the possibility that "many countries will be hesitant to accept it" as an excuse for backing down from the ten-year effort is, at best, disingenious. Isn't this the same administration that is willing to go to war because of suspected nuclear materials trafficking? Now all of a sudden it gets cold feet because some countries may not agree?

I don't see how you can give their incredibly lame excuse any sort of serious consideration.

Perhaps you could take a skeptical assessment of this rather than bogging yourself down in your own rhetoric. Let's look at our two views...

Your assertion is that he is doing to help the terrorists.

My assertion is that he is doing through a series of small steps that can be taken rather than one large step which cannot. Teeth can be added or grown once the structure is in place.

Now, which of the two is more likely to be the case?

 

[Chaos]

Perhaps you could take a skeptical assessment of this rather than bogging yourself down in your own rhetoric. Let's look at our two views...

Your assertion is that he is doing to help the terrorists.

My assertion is that he is doing through a series of small steps that can be taken rather than one large step which cannot. Teeth can be added or grown once the structure is in place.

Now, which of the two is more likely to be the case?

Oh, please, Rob...tell me: when has this administration ever bothered about "series of small steps"?
Was invading Iraq a small step?
Was the "Patriot" Act a small step?
Was locking away hundred of "illegal combatants" away at Gitmo a small step?

I say they were not.

I say that this administration of yours gives a flying fart - if anything at all - about controlling nuke proliferation. They only care about their own agenda - which happens to include plans for more nukes. They don´t want to let that be hampered by such petty thing as the threat of terrorists or "rogue states" aquiring nukes.

But if you have another explanation - one that makes sense, though, let´s hear it.

 

[evildave]

I don't credit Dubya with having that sort of subtlety.

'WMD' and 'nuclear materials' are useful excuses to apply when the decision to invade was made before ever entering office. Like 'people shredders' and 'torture' and 'al quaeda connection', never mind that practically the first thing the US and UK did when they had control over Iraq was start torturing and killing and 'disappearing' people.

The enforcibility and applicability to treaties and international law is of no concern, because to Dubya's (so-called) mind, international laws "shouldn't apply to us", or more precisely, should be dictated by the US at gunpoint over the rest of the world.

And since any treaty with the US is only going to be one-way, and we have no international credibility as standing by the terms of any treaties we make, thanks to Dubya's actions, it's a realistic assessment to simply not bother with international treaties, because everyone on Earth has learned that the USA is the 'ultimate bad guy' now, and any agreement made with the USA will not be honored by the USA, and will be about as beneficial as a 'deal with the devil'.

 

[Rob Lister]

Oh, please, Rob...tell me: when has this administration ever bothered about "series of small steps"?
Was invading Iraq a small step?

Depends on what the ultimate goal is, now doesn't it?

Was the "Patriot" Act a small step?

Inasmuch as it was just window dressing, probably.

Was locking away hundred of "illegal combatants" away at Gitmo a small step?

Very.

I say they were not.

We disagree but the subjectivity is such that neither can be proven.

I say that this administration of yours gives a flying fart - if anything at all - about controlling nuke proliferation.

You're free to say whatever you want.

They only care about their own agenda - which happens to include plans for more nukes.

Better nukes perhaps (with 'better' being defined as tactically useful) That is (arguably) in keeping with national interests which transends agenda.

They don´t want to let that be hampered by such petty thing as the threat of terrorists or "rogue states" aquiring nukes.

I don't know if that's true or not. An objective question would be: are the national interests better served by x or by y?

But if you have another explanation - one that makes sense, though, let´s hear it. [/B]

You have yet to refute my original assertion. It may or may not be correct but it is certainly more likely than the one tricky put forward.

Your opinion may differ.

 

[Rob Lister]

Considering how little the Bush administration seems to care for international opinion, using the possibility that "many countries will be hesitant to accept it" as an excuse for backing down from the ten-year effort is, at best, disingenious. Isn't this the same administration that is willing to go to war because of suspected nuclear materials trafficking? Now all of a sudden it gets cold feet because some countries may not agree?

I don't see how you can give their incredibly lame excuse any sort of serious consideration.

I don't doubt that you 'don't see'. Your rhetoric hangs down in front of your eyes. You think his goal is to 'help terrorists'? That's what you wrote.

So again, I ask: Which reason is more reasonable; yours or mine?

If you have a different theory, one that is more reasonable than mine, I'd like to read it. Who knows, I might even agree with it.

 

[Atlas]

I suspect that the costly international inspection is entirely UN driven. Does anyone know the budget of the inspection body, is it the IAEC?

How much of the budget is contributed by the US?

How many nations have tried to use the nonproliferation treaty as a cover for developing nukes?

How many nations never signed the treaty and so are outside any inspection process?

How many nations have been "found out" through the inspections process rather than through satellite or human intelligence?

Of those nations how many said "Oh wow, you're right - we are in violation... we'll stop and dismantle right now." And then did so.

I don't know the answer to any of these questions but it would seem logical that we might have done some critical analysis with questions like these and found a horrid cost/benefit ratio.

It'll be interesting to me if any pundits analyze the numbers and ask why the administration believes as it does. The story doesn't deserve to be buried.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Dave, George II may not have the subtleties that would be required for that kind of assessment and policy, but the people around him like Chaney and Rumsfeld do.

The fact that all treaty obligations and proposed ideas ( Like the World Court ) that don't fit with their vision of America in the modern world are treated axiomatically ala George I, ( in my best Dana Carvy voice) "wouldn't be prudent at this time".

Where in fact their assessment would be correct in recognizing the World Court's jurisdiction of something that would be politicized ( Show me a war criminal...Saddam? how bout Bush? or Gen. Shalikashvili ? ) That would be a dangerous president .

The other environmental rapes and midnight burglaries however are a weather vane for this man and his polices.The Kyoto treaty -poor DuPont-, the new 58 million acre logging "road" bill that includes harvesting old growth forest ( Tongass Preserve)- poor Warehouser -, the efforts to repeal the clean water act ( signed into law by Nixon - a well known liberal!!) , The clean air act ( vetoed by Nixon and overruled by a super majority of the Congress) , the attempted revision of status of federal lands protected ( including offshore ) by law against development and against the policy of his smarter brother Jeb , secession from the ABM treaty..........Christ my fingers are tired. How many more examples of this man and his policies do people need before they recognize the reality?

 

[Tricky]

Perhaps you could take a skeptical assessment of this rather than bogging yourself down in your own rhetoric. Let's look at our two views...

Your assertion is that he is doing to help the terrorists.

Now Rob, you certainly should recognize that the thread title was just rhetoric to attract interest to the thread. I would never seriously assert that Bush is trying to help terrorism, though he seems to be inadvertantly doing so. Hey we all want our threads to be read, eh?

My assertion is that he is doing through a series of small steps that can be taken rather than one large step which cannot. Teeth can be added or grown once the structure is in place.

Now, which of the two is more likely to be the case?

If I saw what his alternative plan is, I might give some credence to your assertion, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't revealed it. In fact, I wouldn't say that "planning" is George's forte. But if you have info on his plans, by all means share it.

My suspicion (it is not an assertion) is that this is done to keep Georges wealthy arms-maker supporters from losing money. This is based on the evidence of history that Bush has continually put monied interests ahead of the interests of the country, from Enron to Halliburton to polluters. I have every reason to believe that he would do so again.

So even if the treaty proved to be not useful, which is a possibility, I can see no harm in trying, since it doesn't appear that anything in the treaty would make it easier for terrorists to get nuclear materials. I can see great harm in throwing away ten years of work, not the least of which is leaving more loopholes open for terrorists.

 

[evildave]

I'm generally of the opinion that the government WANTS an atom bomb detonated on U.S. soil.

Think of all the rights they could convince cowardly Americans they can do without after an atom bomb goes off?

And the POWER the government could grab!

They could get ANYTHING passed through congress!

They could literally be gunning down peace protestors in the streets to the applause of the vengeful war lovers among us.

They could grab the sort of 'emergency' powers even nazis would shake their head in wonder over.

Crush dissent. Kill dissenters. All in the interest of 'securirty'. They could probably work their right-wing Christian supremacy into it, too. Death camps will not be out of bounds if they can get just one or two medium yield ground-burst nukes with radioactive fallout to go off on the same day.

Never mind the government's negligence (or complicity) that allowed the bombs to be built, delivered, and detonated. Anyone who mentions that will be shot as a traitor. The government needs MORE POWER to deal with this never-ending threat!

After all, the propaganda machine will be in full tilt, and the REAL cause of the damage will be Revealed to us on the TV by our religious leaders: "Those evil non-Christians are at fault! God is punishing us for their sins!" What? Sounds far-fetched? Didn't you pay attention to what they said after 9/11?

 

[Batman Jr.]

I don't doubt that you 'don't see'. Your rhetoric hangs down in front of your eyes. You think his goal is to 'help terrorists'? That's what you wrote.

So again, I ask: Which reason is more reasonable; yours or mine?

If you have a different theory, one that is more reasonable than mine, I'd like to read it. Who knows, I might even agree with it.

Tricky was obviously exaggerating his cynicism to make a joke. His real hypothesis was that Bush didn't want to cloister the big American arms dealers away from their business. The truth is that the Bush administration has shown so much unthinking temerity in doing everything in the past that resisting this treaty in order to be circumspect about it sounds very much out of character for them.

 

[Rob Lister]

Tricky was obviously exaggerating his cynicism to make a joke.

I'm aware of that. The problem is that there really is no good place to discuss politics because everyone is so wrapped up in it that logical answers never get through the rhetoric. It's much easier to discuss the politics of 1504 than 2004, but even that will raise the fur on some cats' backs.

His real hypothesis was that Bush didn't want to cloister the big American arms dealers away from their business.
[/B]

I would be willing to consider that argument if there were any evidence or logic behind it. In what manner would American arms dealer's profit from this concession?

 

[evildave]

I wonder how much it would cost to decontaminate and rebuild a major U.S. port city, compared to the cost of this program?

Health costs for the burned and mutilated, and those suffering from radiation poisoning? Anybody seen those Hiroshima/Nagasaki images?

Interrupted business, goods destroyed, and flow of goods would pretty much sink the economy on the spot. I wonder how much that would cost?

 

[WildCat]

I wonder how much it would cost to decontaminate and rebuild a major U.S. port city, compared to the cost of this program?

Health costs for the burned and mutilated, and those suffering from radiation poisoning? Anybody seen those Hiroshima/Nagasaki images?

Interrupted business, goods destroyed, and flow of goods would pretty much sink the economy on the spot. I wonder how much that would cost?

You'd have a point, if you could guarantee that the inspection program would be 100% effective and foolproof.

But more than likely, it would just be a case of accusations and denials, back and forh for many years, until the nukes are already in place and operational. Such as what happened in N. Korea in the 90's and currently in Iran.

 

[evildave]

So, you think making it harder and more expensive to develop nukes wouldn't pay?

 

[WildCat]

So, you think making it harder and more expensive to develop nukes wouldn't pay?

Did the deal w/ N. Korea make it harder for them to develop nukes? Or did it make it easier by providing them cover?