Skip to comments.Bush admin under heavy fire in Congress over India-US nuclear deal
Posted on 09/09/2005 9:36:59 AM PDT by Gengis Khan
Washington: The Bush administration came under heavy fire from the US Congress for bypassing it and negotiating a significant civilian nuclear deal with India despite its known support for Iran's nuclear ambitions and the US stand on the issue.
At a three-hour hearing of the House International Relations Committee yesterday, key lawmakers visibly upset and at times angry, made no bones about their being kept in the dark over the India-US nuke deal which reverses decades of US nonproliferation policy and could require significant changes to US laws.
''You chose an initiative, which you may not be able to deliver and you chose to make the initiative without, to my knowledge, any serious prior consultations with the Congress,'' complained Republican Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa.
The India-US deal was signed during the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington in July and allows India to get for the first time sensitive civilian nuke technology, creating an exception to the US ban on nuclear assistance to any country that is not a signatory to the NPT.
Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said the administration will hold ''any number of consultations with the Congress'' as President Bush, who perceives India as a rising global power, wants to see this deal through.
Even though most of the Congressmen present at the hearing wholeheartedly supported the new ''realignment'' of bilateral relations between India and the United States, they were skeptical on providing dual use technology to India which refuses to sign the NPT and has openly supported Iran viewed by Washington as a rogue state clandestinely engaged in developing a nuclear weapon.
''It is critical that we consider the far-reaching implications of a full nuclear cooperation with India and how a de facto recognition of India as a nuclear weapons state would undermine US nonproliferation policy,'' said Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).
''Did we ignore the most important nuclear proliferation issue facing America today, namely Iran, in negotiating a nuclear treaty with India?'' Rep Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) asked Burns and Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
Mr Joseph said India's stand on the Iran issue had not come up in negotiations and that the administration faces an ''uphill battle'' to persuade New Delhi and others to support U S policy on Iran.
I dinn't hear anybody in Congress upset with the China-Clinton nuclear deal.
Can anyone address a post without whining "but Clinton got away with it!" Stick to the issue at hand or don't reply at all
Pretty much irrelevant, the braying of Congressmen.
This deal is windowdressing.
The real stuff happens with the UK and India's own technology which will be enhanced by US companies.
Tempest in a Tinpot.
Hey, take a hike if you can't take the truth.
Actually Troll, NO! Go eat a Berger, you'll feel better.
Noob with a 'tude. They tend not to last long on FR.
OK, so I'm pretty new here myself, but when did Bill Clinton become a model for conservative behavior?
YAWOHL, HERR OBERSTURMBAHNFUHRER!
It's not about models, it's about double standards.
Clinton let one hell of a lot of dual-use technology leave the US. Considering the fact that it went directly into the hands of a country that opposes us militarily, and considering the fact that it advanced their nuclear weapons program by thirty years or so, I would say that is EXACTLY the issue at hand. Proliferation doesn't neccessarily mean giving another country a truckload of nuclear weapons.
Interestingly enough that same country, China, gave millions in illegal campaign contributions to the Clinton campaigns. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen... and stop trying to apologize for his colossal idiocy.
I too am infuriated by the double standards. It's just that this kind of comparison makes conservatives look like we don't care about right and wrong. Just about being able to get away with as much as Dems do. That's not my definition of conservatism.
Hmm. A strong alliance with India would be beneficial to keeping Iran from any territorial expansion, which I believe they would attempt if Iraq or Afganistan were to destabilize. Was the Administration required to consult Congress prior to making this deal? If so, then its a problem. If not, then sounds good to me.
DING DING DING DING DING!
Can anyone address a post without whining "but Clinton got away with it!" Stick to the issue at hand or don't reply at all >>
Could you, Newby, perhaps take a lesson from your own hypocrisy and, in case you ever have anything to say, address the post rather than whining at others' posts?
"Stick to the issue at hand or don't reply at all" is what I heard.
[Around here we already don't lack for sookies, wooses, nannies and skoolmarms already already]
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.