Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

:lol :lol :lol :lol

http://www.nysun.com/article/26606

President Bush's endorsement of a plan to end the nuclear standoff with Iran by giving the Islamic republic nuclear fuel for civilian use under close monitoring has left some of his supporters baffled.

One cause for the chagrin is that the proposal, which is backed by Russia, essentially adopts a strategy advocated by Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

"I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear power program under these conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IAEA inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia," Mr. Bush said at a news conference yesterday. "I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea and I support it," he added.

In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Mr. Bush also said he proposed the idea to offer nuclear fuel to Iran and agreed with Moscow on the subject.

During the election campaign, Mr. Kerry urged that the international community offer Iran nuclear fuel in attempt to test whether Iran was serious about pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program or intent on manipulating such a program to produce plutonium for weapons. "We should call their bluff and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon," Mr. Kerry said during a June 2004 speech in Florida.

At a debate in September, Mr. Kerry faulted Mr. Bush for not agreeing to engage the Iranians with such an offer. "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Mr. Kerry said. "The president did nothing."

However, Secretary of State Rice, who was national security adviser at the time, dismissed efforts to cut a deal with the Iranians. "This regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote 'engaged,'" she said in an August 2004 interview with Fox News.

The administration's reticence about Mr. Kerry's plan was not shared by Republican commentators, who accused the senator of favoring "appeasement" and warned that the Iranians could divert nuclear fuel to make bombs.

A Pentagon official under President Reagan, Frank Gaffney Jr., skewered the plan in a column entitled, "Kerry's Nuclear Nonsense." Mr. Gaffney, who did not return a call seeking comment for this story, declared, "Mr. Bush understands the folly of going that route."

Writing in National Review, a Defense Department official under President George H.W. Bush, Jed Babbin, called Mr. Kerry's proposal "ignorant" and "dangerously wrong."

All aboard the backpeddaling train!

 

[TheOMan]

Seriously, this made me :lol hard at work. At least he's doing something about the volatile situation I suppose.

 

[MIMIC]

 

[Phoenix]

 

[Kevtones]

The funniest part about it is that every politician does this. Bush isn't special.

 

[MIMIC]

The funniest part about it is that every politician does this. Bush isn't special.

Bush is more than special. Bush is retarded.

(I accidentally made a pun =p)

 

[Crab Shaker]

Politicians SHOULD steal each other's ideas. They shouldn't be dumbasses who refuse to admit they're wrong *cough*bush presidency for the past 5 years *cough*.

If politicians didn't take each other's ideas, then they'd pigheaded idiots too absorbed in their own image and pride.


I'm liberal but this thread is flat out ridiculous blasting.

 

[EnvoyDenali]

so.. you laugh at him if he doesnt reverse course and agree with your original idea... but you'd then criticize him if he didnt do that.

i would have imagined you'd be happy about him taking a stance you would agree with.

i dont agree or disagree with his stance as i have no clue what is right for the iran situation..

just saying...

 

[Ned Flanders]

Well, Bush is known for his righteous indignation and almost complete refusal to admit wrongdoing or miscalculation. It wasn't until post-Katrina that we saw him really own up to anything or outwardly admit mistakes, so I think its fair to point out the irony/hypocrisy of him adopting Kerry's approach.

 

[Suikoguy]

Damn, all this flip-flopping

 

[MIMIC]

so.. you laugh at him if he doesnt reverse course and agree with your original idea... but you'd then criticize him if he didnt do that.

i would have imagined you'd be happy about him taking a stance you would agree with.

i dont agree or disagree with his stance as i have no clue what is right for the iran situation..

just saying...

BUT IT WAS OK TO CALL JOHN KERRY A FLIP-FLOPPER.

 

[bjork]

:yawn:

 

[Timedog]

:yawn:

double true.

 

[Tiger]

While there is some amusement to be had with this story, I wouldn't exactly call it lol hilarious. Considering that we are well over a year revmoved from the debates, it's easy to believe that various things change over that much time. Maybe we have some intelligence for instance, which would make this Russian plan more acceptable to us. Also, if we even got to the point where this agreement were to be worked out, i'm sure we would have some serious demands placed on the verification process.



Lastly, i'll float one more idea to consider. Let's just say that Israel is truly nearing an actual strike on the Iranian reactors in the next couple months. The U.S would obviously be aware of such a thing ahead of time, so Bush could be simply playing cool with whatever right now because he knows that Israel is gonna pull out the big suprise in the very near future. just a thought.

 

[MetatronM]

While there is some amusement to be had with this story, I wouldn't exactly call it lol hilarious. Considering that we are well over a year revmoved from the debates, it's easy to believe that various things change over that much time. Maybe we have some intelligence for instance, which would make this Russian plan more acceptable to us. Also, if we even got to the point where this agreement were to be worked out, i'm sure we would have some serious demands placed on the verification process.

I think you are missing the point of where the irony in all this is.

For the record, I'm actually glad to see Bush trying an unorthodox approach to a problem with a possible adversary on the world stage that doesn't involve calling up the Army Reserve. I just find the American people's acceptance of (and really ignorance of) the administration's pure two-faced bullshit absolutely exasperating. But the policy is something I'm interested in seeing put into effect.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

when I try to access the yahoo story on this (http://preview.news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Iran) I get this:

 

[Ripclawe]

Just playing nice, nothing more, Iran won't accept the proposal and he knows it. But at least he is on record for the Russia plan.