Posted on 10/06/2004 8:59:56 AM PDT by xtremepoison61
John Kerry has been much lampooned for saying that he "actually voted for" funding U.S. troops in Iraq "before he voted against it." He's in a another contradictory position when it comes to nuclear energy. Kerry's Web site states that "nuclear power can play an essential role in providing affordable energy while reducing the risk of climate change." His aides also say he is for nuclear power. So far, so good. But then on a recent campaign stop in Las Vegas — about 100 miles away from the planned Yucca Mountain (search) site for the long-term disposal of waste from nuclear power plants — Kerry said, "When I'm president of the United States, I'll tell you about Yucca Mountain: Not on my watch." The realty of the matter, however, is that you can't be "for" nuclear energy (search) but "against" Yucca Mountain.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Hey, this is just a thought, but, WHAT IF WE GIVE IRAN NUCLEAR FUEL?? I'm sure they will be responsible with it judging from their history.
hahaha yeah, lets give them a couple of steath bombers too, just to prevent them from developing it? i guess?
I'd rather that I be given the nuclear fuel. I have some ideals for it and DNC! Oops, can I say that?
"They call him flipper, flipper..."
Did anyone else see the stuffed Flippers in the background on MSNBC last night?
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.