.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

American Values Under Attack Image by FlamingText.com
Image by FlamingText.com

"Fighting the world wide web of wicked wrong doers."

Welcome. The aim of this site is simple - to rail against the slow, but steady chipping away of traditonal American values by a host of groups & individuals bent on destroying them.

“We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" - John Page 1776

And crown thy good with brotherhood.... ....from sea to shining sea line07-b.gif Your commentator - Francis Lynn...MySpace Profile...E-mail





Sunday, October 03, 2004

Kerry - Wrong on Iran

In the debate, John Kerry offered up his grand plan on dealing with Iran & it's potential development of a nuclear weapon. Kerry says he would put Iran’s intentions to the test by agreeing to supply it with nuclear fuel for its power reactors provided Tehran stopped efforts to make its own fuel and returned the spent fuel after use. Iran responded to Kerry:

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be “irrational” for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.“We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others,” Asefi told a weekly news conference. Another Kerry foreign policy failure.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wrong again. Kerry can only make foreign policy AFTER he becomes president. What will Bush do? He has his hands full with an ill-advised war in Iraq with a shortage of troops (how about a post on today's disclosure of the armed forces coercing brave American men to re-enlist). Other Muslim countries will not stand for another invasion of an Arab country - another consequence of being in Iraq. The foreign policy failure is Bush's.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

White House officials undermine case for war

06.10.2004
8.15am - By RUPERT CORNWELL in Washington
President Bush's rationale for the Iraq war, and his subsequent handling of the conflict, have been separately undermined by two of his own top officials - handing precious new ammunition to the Democrats as the election campaign enters a crucial phase.

The first blow came when Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary and a prime architect of the war, told foreign policy experts that he had never seen "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda. His words, answering questions at a Council of Foreign Relations meeting in New York, implicitly take issue with one of Mr Bush's long-standing arguments to justify the March 2003 invasion.

Hours later, the man who was the US pro-consul in Iraq for 15 months until June 2004 complained that the Bush administration failed to send a large enough force to deal with the violence and looting after Saddam had been toppled.

"We never had enough troops on the ground," Paul Bremer, who headed the Coalition Provisional Authority until it was disbanded, told an insurance conference in West Virginia.

Democratic challenger John Kerry leapt on Mr Bremer's admission.

"Now we learn that America's top official in Iraq acknowledges that we didn't deploy enough troops and didn't contain the violence - I hope that Mr Cheney can acknowledge those mistakes tonight," Mr Kerry declared.

Mr Bremer tried to repair the damage, issuing a statement that he was referring only to the immediate post-war period and that he fully supported current efforts to train an Iraqi force to take over security duties.

But the damage was done, with remarks from a man who has been a staunch supporter of the President, often mentioned as a possible Secretary of State in a second Bush term.

In an earlier and hitherto unnoticed speech at DePauw University in Indiana last month, Mr Bremer confessed he "should have been even more insistent" in his advice to the administration. Had he been so, the situation today in Iraq might be much improved, he said on that occasion.

If that were not enough, almost every day brings new reminders of how Mr Bush's main rationale for the war - the threat posed by Saddam's supposed arsenal of illicit chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - has crumbled.

At the weekend, the New York Times published new evidence that the administration presented Saddam's purchase of aluminium tubes as proof that he was reconstituting its nuclear programme -- even as it was being told by its own experts that the tubes were destined not for centrifuges to enrich uranium, but for much smaller (and perfectly legal) artillery rockets.

Today, Charles Duelfer, the chief US arms inspector in Iraq, is due to present a 1,500-page report to Congress concluding that Iraq neither had weapons of mass destruction, nor significant WMD production programmes at the time of the invasion.

The only crumb Mr Duelfer can offer the White House is that Saddam intended to reactivate his plans to produce such weapons once United Nations sanctions were lifted.

3:58 PM  
Blogger Francis Lynn said...

Geesh - wake up! Every Presidential candidate has a foreign policy. Even I have a foreign policy. Can we implement them? Not really, unless we become President. And again - ignore the assertions in the post - seems ya have problems defending Kerry's positions. Maybe that is because they are indefensible.

12:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every presidential candidate has a PROPOSED foreign policy. The President has an IMPLEMENTED one. And the IMPLEMENTED one doesn't work.

Let's talk about Afghanistan for a moment. And their economy. It's more than doubled in the past year. From what??? OPIUM poppy sales of more than 2.3 BILLION dollars! How does Afghanistan exporting opium to the United States help us? It could be that this new regime will be responsible for more human tragedy than the Taliban did. Replacing one evil for another is not a policy I would endorse.

12:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source