Show me where I said OBL should have weapons grade nuclear material.
Just as you (rightly) assert the sovereign right of the U.S. to act in it's own best interest -- other countries also have the sovereign right to act in their own best interests.
It doesn't harm the interests of the U.S. for another country to possess nuclear power plants -- that's a separate issue from possessing weapons-grade material (or the ability to make such material).
There's no denying that the international "watchdogs", which are supposed to control weapons proliferation, are toothless. That problem should be fixed.
Going after every country that wants nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes would not be acting in the interests of the U.S. That is, unless you think alienating Canada, and over 20 other countries that have nuclear reactors (but no nuclear weapons) somehow serves your interests.
BTW,even your own government disagrees with you -- the Bush administration wants to sell lots of nuclear reactors. http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13459-disposable-nuclear-reactors-raise-security-fears.html
The point of disagreement is your contention that nations of the world have some “right” to possess nuclear anything.
They do not.
And the fact that the Bush administr.ation chooses to sell nuclear power equipment or technology to certain nations only proves my point. That it is up to the U.S. to decide which nations can receive what of our technology (if any), based upon OUR interests, and not some non-existent “right” of any other nation to possess or access or use any particular technology.
Also, I never said you said OBL should have anything. I was mocking your assertion that:
It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.
That assertion lacks any logic to it, and my (admittedly absurd) examples were to point out the absurdity of your assertion:
It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.
sr