Posted on 10/02/2004 8:51:33 AM PDT by tmp02
In a little noticed remark during the first presidential debate, Sen. John Kerry said he believed the United States should have provided Iran's hardline, cleric-led Islamic regime with nuclear fuel even as intelligence reports indicate Tehran is on the verge of producing a bomb.
"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," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.
The comments came during Thursday night's debate in Miami in reponse to a question about whether diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the "nuclear problems" with North Korea and Iran
"If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."
But Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program.
Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.
Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching Israel, Sept. 18 and also in August.
During the debate, Bush said he wants to continue to work with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain to "convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions."
Responding to Kerry, Bush noted the U.S. already has sanctioned Iran.
"We can't sanction them any more," he said. "There are sanctions in place on Iran."
Israel has said it wants to await the outcome of international pressure on Iran before it considers a pre-emptive military strike on reactors as it did in 1981.
Israeli officials say Iran could produce atomic weapons by 2007.
At another point in the debate, Kerry also said he wants to end research on bunker-busting nuclear weapons, which presumably could take out an Iranian reactor if his sanctions are ineffective.
Kerry said it "doesn't make sense" for Bush to be pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons when the U.S. is trying to tell countries such as North Korea to disarm.
"You talk about mixed messages," he said. "We're telling other people, You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."
"Not this president," Kerry said. "I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."
Hey, I'm all for giving fissionable material to Iran...nosecone first.
sorry jim this puter went haywire in the middle of posting
How did this jerk even get elected as a Senator?
Quick, somebody, PLEASE post the url showing a recent photo of Kerry TRYING to put his head up his "you-know-what".
I saw it today -- hilarious!!!
Help, anyone know where it is? It was a Yahoo news article.
I don't read you, are you logged in?
Let me get this straight, Kerry wants to give Nuclear material to Iran (sort of like our deal with North Korea) and at the same time he wants to shut down our own nuclear weapons (bunker buster) program.
This thing shouldn't even be close.
ROTFLMAO!! I can send y'all some duct tape, too.
You have correctly identified the specifics of the Kerry, "I have a plan speech."
One roll of farmer's friend is on the way.
"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,"
Cripes, what am I missing? It's one thing to give your 16 year old son the car keys for the first time... It's a whole 'nuther thing to give a bunch of proven loonies the precursor to a weapon that can kill scores of millions in a split second. Geez what a dope...
"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,"
I hope the Bush campaign jumps on this.
I guess the answer to Kerry's test is whether New York or DC is nuked by the ragheads. He's insane along with most libbies
How can nuclear fuel be used for peaceful purposes? I remember growing up in a liberal family being taught that nuclear power must be stopped! It was e-e-e-e-evil! Now we want to give this stuff to suicidal terrorist lovers? Wouldn't they build a nuclear power facility for the singular purpose of doing a big ol' honkin "China Syndrome"???
Actually, I guess that exact time when "nuclear power is an evil poison that must be eradicated from the world" became "nuclear power has peaceful purposes and should be given as gifts to lunatics" was back when Clinton gave nuclear fuel to North Korea.
I think it's only fair that once the liberals concede defeat on their big issues that they must do it publicly so that the exact time can be noted for the history books and the other side can have themselves a little victory celebration.
John Fn Kerry is one World Communist tool, ain't he?
What a world when the RAT Party has been marginalized to pretty much only their wide Communist, hedonist base in America...and the UN, France, Germany, the EU in general.
Now who's the idiot Senator. I suppose you intend to defend this country with spitballs.
Crack -- it's not just for breakfast anymore.
That's simple. He represents the people of Massachusetts. Next question.
(steely)
The Bush people should hammer this home.
Kerry's idea of "strengthening America" is to do away with all of our new military programs, get rid of all of our nuclear weapons and give them to Iran and all our other enemies.
They set up a TV camera and posted a couple of IAEA inspectors at a location to verify that they were keeping their word. Of course, the NK simply moved the work to another location and kept going.
Bush figured it out and stopped construction of the nuke.
Explain why it is that a Dem won't allow a nuke to be built in the US but wants to pay for and build one in North Korea, and wants to provide free nuclear fuel to Iran?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.