BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer

Subject: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 06:50 PM

Bush:   Dangerously Wrong On Non-Proliferation

Don't take my word for it.

Source: MSNBC News 25 Oct 2004

Half the world's stockpile of plutonium and highly enriched uranium is in Russia. 600 metric tons are now warehoused. Of that quantity, the US Department of Energy reported at the end of 2003, 22% is satisfactorily stored.

As Kerry pointed out in the first debate, at the current rate it will take 13 years to do it all.
He says he can and will do it in 4.

Bush has decided to let 2 of the major programs to secure this material lapse, since Russia would not agree to a change in the agreement which would shield US firms from worker safety liability.

Senator Pete Domenici, Republicaan of New Mexico: "I wonder if he (Bush) has been advised that the liability issue is preventing destruction of enough plutonium for about 10,000 weapons."

Robert Galluci, dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service: "This (unsecured nuclear material) is the principal security threat to the United States in the next decade". Of course, he could have added it's the major threat to the world.

Sounds like Bush should change the slogan of the US from "E Pluribus Unum" to "Corporate Privilege At All Costs" (have to find the Latin for that).

And for this he's willing to sacrifice world nuclear safety.

OK, Doug R, Larry K et al.--let's hear your feeble excuses.

And, for all that, those of the Naderites, who cannot bring themselves to support the one person in the world who can improve the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:05 PM

It only takes one or two nuclear devices in the right place and all hell will break loose. Great post, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:20 PM

Is that anything like Nucular?    ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM

Have to ask Bush on that one, Cluin.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:40 PM

Can you post a link please Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:45 PM

Here's one link, although it is the same story covered by the Post, not MSN.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:14 PM

Novus ordo seclorum...printed right there on the dollar, all blatant like...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:56 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/

The above is the site---I'm afraid I don't know how to do links.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:00 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:01 PM

Sorry, I still can't seem to do the "blue clickies"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:16 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6331771/

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

Still waiting for an explanation of Bush's conduct from members of his fan club.

Deafening silence from Bearded Bruce, Doug R., Larry K, et al.

Fascinating.

Well, as they say, silence consents.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 10:12 PM

You all seem to think that Bush lettin' the rest of the world get into the nuclear arms race is a mistake. Make no bones about it, the neocons want exactly what they are getting.

Don't forget the 2 motivational goals of the neo-cons:

1. Bankrupt the American government so they can kill off the New Deal.

2. Scare the American people to the degree that they will allow the military industrialists profits beyond thier wildest dreams.

So lets keep things in perspective here. There is meatghod to their madness. Does it make the world safer? No. Does it makes their daddies proud? Sho nuff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:58 PM

Still waiting for answers from Bush supporters. It appears there are none---neither answers nor supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Peace
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:03 AM

Ron,

I am holding my breath on the Canadian Submarine thread. Don't you do it here.

Brucie

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: GUEST,Bunky
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 07:51 AM

"Munitions Overkill
The story behind the story of Saddam's lost explosives.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT "
"In the late 1980s, Saddam Hussein's regime purchased large stocks of the explosives HMX, RDX and PETN from suppliers in China, Yugoslavia and--deep breath now--France. Ostensibly, these explosives have their civilian applications, such as mining and demolition. But because they are both chemically stable (they detonate only when properly fused) and highly explosive, they also have extensive military uses. They are common in conventional military ordnance, such as mines and artillery shells. They are uniquely well-suited for terrorist attacks; less than a pound of these explosives brought down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. And they can be used as triggers to set off a nuclear chain reaction.

Following the first Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency put the Qaqaa cache under seal, where it remained until U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998. Upon the inspectors' return in late 2002, some 35 tons of HMX were found to be missing; the Iraqis claimed some of it had been removed for civilian use.

That's the last we know of their whereabouts. According to a Times source, U.S. troops "went through the bunkers, but saw no items bearing the IAEA seal." NBC News, which was embedded with the 101st Airborne when it arrived at Al-Qaqaa on April 10, 2003--the day after the fall of Baghdad--also reports this week that back then it found no sign of the explosives either. Stands to reason: Of course Saddam would remove his precious HMX from its last known location before U.S. cruise missiles could find it.

So much, then, for Mr. Kerry's suggestion that Bush Administration negligence is to blame for the missing stockpile."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005812

Subject: RE: BS: Bush: Dangerously Wrong On Nuclear Non-
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:31 AM

Bunkie---

I'll say this very slowly so you can understand.


Read....the......thread......title

OK.   Now--read.......the........first......posting


The question is simple and narrow. Why did Bush decide to let 2 of the major programs to secure Russian plutonium and highly enriched uranium lapse?

Senator Pete Domenici (Republican of New Mexico) says it's because of a liability issue---that US firms, who, I would hazard a guess, just might possibly be Bush supporters----imagine that!----want exemption from worker safety liability.


We are not discussing alleged problems in Missouri in 2000, missing explosives in Iraq, or the relative merits of Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears.

Why did Bush end these 2 programs?

OK, got it?

What's your answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Bunky
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 06:40 PM

"WSJ Opinion Journal
The Wages of Appeasement
How Jimmy Carter and academic multiculturalists helped bring us Sept. 11"

"In contrast, George W. Bush, impervious to such self-deception, has, in a mere 2 1/2 years, reversed the perilous course of a quarter-century. Since Sept. 11, he has removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, begun to challenge the Middle East through support for consensual government, isolated Yasser Arafat, pressured the Europeans on everything from anti-Semitism to their largesse to Hamas, removed American troops from Saudi Arabia, shut down fascistic Islamic "charities," scattered al Qaeda, turned Pakistan from a de facto foe to a scrutinized neutral, rounded up terrorists in the United States, pressured Libya, Iran and Pakistan to come clean on clandestine nuclear cheating, so far avoided another Sept. 11--and promises that he is not nearly done yet."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004952

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Pickles
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 09:48 PM

"Highlights of Program to Cut Nuke Threat
Updated: Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2004 - 4:03 PM

For research reactors _ Russia has agreed to retrieve uranium from reactors in 17 countries, and the United States has accelerated its retrieval program. "
wtopnews.com

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:01 PM

The 2 programs I cited have been suspended. Why?

I must compliment you 2 most recent posters on your ability to dance around the question
without answering it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Arfie
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:03 PM

"True? Only partly. Most of Kerry's figures came from a study by Harvard nuclear experts Matthew Bunn and Anthony Wier. But Bunn himself admits that he had to correct some of his own numbers"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6161107/site/newsweek/

Arf Arf

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:10 PM

What is your answer to (Republican) Senator Domenici, who, it is remotely possible, may know more about the topic than the giant intellect who now alleges to head the country?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:33 PM

Looks very much like the Bushites don't want to discuss real issues which effect real people... This thread has beena round long enough for them to have their say and they haven't...

Their silence speaks volumes about the substance of their political philosopies...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:41 PM

"Senator Domenici is confused. That is perhaps the kindest explanation of his current lapse into nuclear evangelism. He equates anti-plutonium with anti-nuclear and concludes that America's energy salvation can be attained only through the rebirth of nuclear energy built upon a new acceptance of the virtues of plutonium."

http://www.nci.org/p/pl-bas98.htm

S

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:43 PM

So then there's no problem that the nuclear material is not secured? That will be big news to a lot of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM

...because Russia has agreed to dispose of Iran's nuclear waste?

I don't know...

Is it related?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:55 AM

Let's not let the Bushites off the hook

I want them to tell us why there is no problem that nuclear material is unsecured.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:59 AM

In view of Beslan, the Russkys are just as interested in securing the nukes as we are.

S

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Metchosin
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:13 AM

How about if I guess why there's no problem....

The US is going to build a great big star wars blanket over the North American continent to stop any nasty stuff dropping in from other places.

The US can't really come up with a technology to accurately count votes yet, but the star wars blanket....Hey, no sweat!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:20 AM

Please read the opening post again.

Bush has suspended 2 programs to secure nuclear material since some US firms want the agreement changed to allow them immunity from worker safety liability, and Russia will not change the program to fit Bush's domestic allies' interests. Nor should it---worker safety should not be ignored----or do you think it should?


Therefore Bush has dramatically slowed the progress of securing nuclear matierial in Russia (obviously Russian still has huge financial problems and cannot pay for the program itself)

Just as obviously, it's in our, and the world's interest that the programs continue.


Ergo Bush is needlessly jeopardizing world nuclear safety.


That in itself is actually grounds for removing him on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:55 AM

Any direct quotes? Any links to Pro Bush sources?

S

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:42 PM

Exactly which part of the opening post do you doubt?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 06:51 AM

Everything that is not from a pro bush source and is not quoted directly as per the RD socialist party specifications.

S

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:41 PM

Smedly - if you doubt it then it is up to you to find a source that confirms your position. Whatever that is...?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 09:24 PM

Anything that does not meet the RD specs must not even be read, much less evaluated.

S

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prol
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 09:36 PM

Smedly, what's the "the RD socialist party?"

Do you say MSNBC lies?

I can't follow your argument. Can't even find it. Explain, please.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 07:09 PM

I don't have a position or an argument.
I want to know if the information in the original post to this thread meets the spefications laid down by Ron Davies before I study it.

I don't want my mind to be poisioned.

S

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:03 PM

*grin*...I have known a number of 'smedleys' in my time..

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:15 PM

"Smedley"--

I have a sneaky suspicion you'd rather blow smoke than actually debate the topic. Say it ain't so.

If you don't believe the first post, you are welcome to refer to MSNBC of the day cited, or to the Washington Post of the same day.

Sorry it isn't Rush Limbaugh--maybe next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:48 PM

Ron:

So Bush is an asshole for arrogantly trying to be the peace keeper of the world. But he is also an asshole for not being the peace keeper of the world.

I got it.

And Pete Domenici's wondering, not statements to the effect that Bush is preventing destruction of something makes him twice an asshole either way.

In addition everything that any previous administration has or has not done is scooped up and laid at the feet of Mr Bush.

I am wondering if someone is not trying to put all the blame for everything on Bush.

Was there a global test done on the US acting unilaterally to "destroy this material? Was it approved by the UN?

Yes, If what you are saying is true and not just finger pointing. we are all doomed. Start digging your hole.

But let me go into more detail:

The title to your thread is your creation not NBC's. That is your unbiased interpretation of what was on NBC. Right?

"Don't take my word for it" means that your word is the same as NBC's word?

The statement about half the world's stock pile comes from the DOE and does not point any fingers at Bush or anybody. Just a statement of facts.

The John Kerry statement points a finger, one of thousands, at Bush. That is proof of something?

"Bush has let 2 programs lapse because Russia would not agree to something." It is their shit that they made and they want to place conditions on someone else to take care of it for free? Is that the fault of Russia or Bush? It seems to me that he is protecting American interests and the tax money that you and me pay.

Then a Domenici wondering. His opinion, not NBC's? His attempt to put a spin on something to make it a Bush fault?

I wonder If Ron D has considered the liabilities involved in toying with world opinion on nuclear proliferation? Ha! you are in trouble now.

Then a statement by Robert Galluci that applies to any nuclear material anywhere in the world at any time from the creation of the first nuclear material and into the future. Where does he say it is a George Bush fault?

Then it says he could have added...... Who said that? NBC, Galluci? Kerry or you?

The I read "It sounds like........" Was that NBC saying what it sounds like? Sounds like it was you are putting your spin on NBC's story.

And lastly a statement that "he" is willing to sacrifice something. Again it looks like you are adding your spin to NBC's story because you have not delineated what was from NBC and what was not.

I am sorry to sound so hostile but I get mad when I parse something like this and evaluate it.

Bottom line is that Kerry accused Bush of ending something and it was wrong. It is my opinion that this is one of a thousand accusations Kerry has made in his failed attempt to make himself look good and get more votes at the expense of the national security.

NBC reporting it does not ad validity.

Anybody that wants to believe this is welcome to so but you wanted my opinion and my opinion it is a waste of time to read it.

Also I note a dearth of direct quotations and Pro-Bush sources but I am not going to enforce those particular rules of debate. because you seem to have let them lapse.

Smedly

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Peace
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 11:56 PM

Smedley's (an English company) makes a passably good steak and kidney pie. Comes in a pie-shaped tin. Haven't had one in a few years. Thanks for reminding me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM

"U.S. blocked centrifuge parts bound for Libya"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3849885/

"Bush urges global effort to end WMD trafficking
President emphasizes threat of weapons getting in terrorists' hands"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4268822/


"Bush urges nations to limit trade in nuclear fuel"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4235681/

Smedly

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prol
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:18 AM

Bush is dangerously wrong on most everything!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:30 PM

Smedly--

1) Thanks so much for responding in a way that might possibly indicate you would like to have a sane debate on this.

2) Foul language is not necessary, unless it's the only language you speak. I was hoping you'd be at least bi-lingual: guttter language and English----- (even though one of our enthusiastic posters seems to be just starting English, having mastered the first one cited.)

3) Objectivity of sources sounds like it will be a problem for you. Most Americans will accept a statement by MSNBC as objective. (As you may know, NBC is owned by GE, one of the most respected firms in the country). I am not citing Ramparts, the Nation or another source which may not be objective, just as I don't believe that Mr. Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is precisely the ticket here either.

4) I'm sorry I gave you credit for more intelligence than appears to be the case. I assure you I won't again. Since you're a Bushite, I should have known. Have you figured out that the "RD socialist party" is in your head? As a registered Republican, albeit one totally disgusted with Mr. Bush, I find your idea faintly amusing.

I did not quote the article--I paraphrased, except when I used direct quotes. The crucial quote is by Senator Domenici,---- (another Republican who has found Mr. Bush less than perfect, certainly on this topic.)---- and, like all quotes I use, word for word.

In case you still haven't figured it out, everything after the quote by Robert Galluci is my own commentary. I would have thought that perhaps when I mentioned Doug R., Larry K, et al., you would have realized this.

I also started the whole posting by referring any reader to MSNBC---to avoid having to take my word on anything.


5) You still haven't answered if Bush was right to sacrifice world nuclear safety to the wishes of a few firms --- (perhaps Bush supporters, who knows?)---who want a shield from workers' safety liability.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 08:13 AM

Well, well.

It appears there's no word from Doug R., Larry K, Old Guy, Bearded Bruce, or any of the other Bush cheerleaders on precisely why it's just hunky dory that Bush, by discontinuing two programs to secure nuclear material in Russia,----- since some US firms want a shield against workers safety liability,---- has jeopardized world nuclear safety.

Sounds like we're forced to the conclusion that Bushites don't care about nuclear safety, or just maybe, that they don't want to admit their boy is dead wrong on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 08:22 PM

First this thread died and went off of the list from lack of interest utill you revived it.

There is no link to MSNBC News 25 Oct 2004
I can't find it so I have no idea what part of your post was by you and what part is by them. A pretty sloppy job of posting in view of the restrictions you place on others.

Most Americans will accept a statement by MSNBC as objective.
All three networks gave Kerry 38% positive evaluations. But ABC gave Bush only 20% positive, compared to 30% at NBC and 35% at CBS.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6bJbYhaP8pAJ:www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.20.ElectionWatch.pdf+Center+for+Media+and+Public+Affairs+at+George+Mason+University+&hl=en

I still assert that Russia should put no conditions on the US cleaning up their mess.

Your guy lost. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 09:00 PM

First this thread died and went off of the list from lack of interest until you revived it.

Yes I am able to speak foul language unlike the Liberal elite (when the mike is on).

There is no link to MSNBC News 25 Oct 2004.
I can't find it on MSNBC so I have no idea what part of your post was by you and what part is by NBC. A pretty sloppy job of posting in view of the restrictions you place on others.

I have searched to find out what 2 programs Bush suspended but I can't find them so I am still only able to respond to the mixture of information and conjecture you posted.

Most Americans will accept a statement by MSNBC as objective.
All three networks gave Kerry 38% positive evaluations. But ABC gave Bush only 20% positive, compared to 30% at NBC and 35% at CBS.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6bJbYhaP8pAJ:www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.20.ElectionWatch.pdf+Center+for+Media+and+Public+Affairs+at+George+Mason+University+&hl=en

What bearing do Hannity or Limbaugh have or your original post that we are repeatedly told to focus on?

I too am a registered Republican and I am not all that enamored with all of Bush's policies. My posts were anti-Kerry not pro Bush.

I feel honored to have my intelligence portioned out by someone of such superior intelligence. Therefore you will always think you have the upper hand and be faintly amused by lower class beings.

crucial quote is by Senator Domenici I don't regard a wondering as any thing crucial. It is not a statement.

I still assert that Russia should put no conditions on the US cleaning up their mess.

Your guy lost. Get over it.

You do not mention the links I posted about positive steps that bush has taken toward nuclear proliferation because it shoots holes in you botched anti-Bush posting that does not meet your own standards.

Smedly

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 06:59 PM

Smedly---

Even though your boy himself seems to believe that thinking is not something a true Republican does, you would be advised to try it some time. You would also be advised to check facts before shooting from the lip,--( though again your boy does not---is he really your role model?)

1) Please point out to me exactly where I complained about the election result on this thread. If you would do some elementary checking, you would find that I started this thread before the election. It was an issue before the election; it's still an issue.

2) I appreciate your acceptance of the ground rules---no profanity. It's not necessary in any civilized debate--although one of our posters ( not on this thread) seems to find it hard to live without it.

3) Obviously, the thread went off the list since you didn't deign to answer the basic question---was Bush right to sacrifice world nuclear safety to the wishes of a few US firms who want a shield from worker safety liability?. It's a simple question---yes or no.

4) If you assert that Russia should put no conditions on the US "clearing up their mess", I submit that is a, pardon the expression, stupidly short-sighted attitude on your part---- (but one which fits perfectly with the intellectual and moral brilliance of your mighty leader). If you don't think it is in the US interest to make sure Russian nuclear material is secure--and not trickling or flowing into the hands of anti-US states or parties--give your head a shake.

5) If you don't believe MSNBC is objective, what exactly is your gripe? Are you aware that even Fox news found that Kerry won the first debate? NBC is owned by GE--what do you have against GE? MS is obviously Microsoft--I loathe and despise Microsoft, but that doesn't mean I reject everything they have ever been associated with.

6) The only part of my original post which is absolutely crucial is the quote by Sen. Domenici. It is a direct quote. If you doubt he said it you can look it up.

7) Interesting that you feel honored to have your intelligence "portioned out" (sic) by me. Can you translate that into English?

8) Sean Hannity and Mr. Limbaugh on the Right correspond to Al Franken on the Left. All foam at the mouth and do little else. Therefore I am disinclined to take their word. Nor should you.

9) I think it's reasonable to be tolerantly amused when you made your brilliant remark about the "RD Socialist Party".



Still waiting for your answer. Your boy is dead wrong on this, as on so much else. You'd best admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 04:15 PM

It's still apropos.

And still there's been no answer from any of our wonderful Bushites---Bearded Bruce, Old Guy, Smedly, Doug R., Larry K., Guest US. etc.

It's a simple question--was Bush right to suspend 2 of the programs to secure nuclear material in Russia, suspending them at the behest of few US firms which want immunity from workers' safety liability?

Yes or no?

Bushites seem expert at plundering other websites and posting information totally irrelevant to this narrow question.

However, they have a severe problem actually answering the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Dangerously Wrong on Nuclear Non-Prolifer
From: GUEST,Smedly
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:23 PM

RD: You have presented such a sloppy thing to respond to that it is no wonder you cannot get a response that satisfies your stringent needs.

An 8th Grader could present better. The articles you cite cannot be found and you did not provide a link.

Suppose you restate your requirements for presenting something for debate and for the responses.

Otherwise keep obloviating and asserting your superior intelligence.

Smedly