| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Kerry: Nuclear Terrorism Is Gravest Threat to U.S. |
| 2004-06-01 |
| Nuclear terrorism is the gravest threat the United States faces, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Tuesday as he offered a plan to secure atomic arsenals and materials around the world. In the second of three speeches on national security, Kerry is expected to propose a new high-level White House job to oversee efforts to prevent a terrorist attack using nuclear weapons and recommend speeding up a current program to secure nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. He mustn’t have gotten the memo about Pakistan and Khan... "The greatest threat we face today (is) the possibility of al Qaeda or other terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon," Kerry said. "Osama bin Laden has called obtaining a weapon of mass destruction a ’sacred duty."’ He has said he would adopt a two-track policy of continuing the six-party talks that include Russia, Japan, China and South Korea while also holding direct discussions with Pyongyang. "Peace in our time!" After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Kerry said Americans needed to "take away politics, strip away the labels" and ask honest questions... Kerry has supported expanding and accelerating Nunn-Lugar as an important defense against terrorists and rogue states obtaining old Soviet weapons of mass destruction. "If we secure all bomb-making materials, ensure that no new materials are produced for nuclear weapons, and end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran, we will dramatically reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism," he said. Is Kerry really so clueless to not know that Pakistan (an Islamic state which has supported terrorists in the past) has nuclear weapons? And has exported the tech? Last week, he outlined four "imperatives" -- rebuilding alliances "shredded" by Bush’s go-it- As long as it doesn’t mean drilling anywhere... Bush and his Republican allies have tried to portray Kerry as an equivocating liberal, soft on defense and weak on fighting terrorism. |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #15 Ok, gravest threat. Freudian slip? |
| Posted by: ed 2004-06-01 10:15:34 PM |
| #14 Kerry had me convinced GW Bush was the gravest treat. Did he change his mind again? |
| Posted by: ed 2004-06-01 10:09:57 PM |
| #13 Good grief. Even if there weren't a war on, and even if I were still a Democrat-- which I was for 31 years, until last year-- I don't think I could bring myself to vote for John Kerry. Why would I? WHY? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-06-01 7:42:57 PM |
| #12 On Brit Hume yesterday he talked to the author of a Kerry biography, somebody with the Boston Globe. Anyway, I remember this guy talking about how Kerry is an intellectual and he likes to listen to both sides and play devils advocate and think through things. The thoughts running through my mind was "Great! If he's president how long will it take for him to have this intellectual discussion to figure out what to do? By the time he finishes his musings then a major catastrophe would have occurred." We had the Rhodes scholare as presdient and look where that got us! NOWHERE and fast! |
| Posted by: AF Lady 2004-06-01 7:23:56 PM |
| #11 Kerry needs to brief himself with a couple of years of RB before he shoots off his mouth. Based upon some of the Kerry-related comments contained herein, it may also be a character-building and humbling experience. Heh heh..... But he is a Senator ***bow and make sweeping hand gestures*** so he knows everything.... |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-01 4:39:36 PM |
| #10 How's he plan on dealing with Iran? Milk and cookies? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-01 4:38:57 PM |
| #9 Kerry is expected to propose a new high-level White House job to oversee efforts to prevent a terrorist attack using nuclear weapons and recommend speeding up a current program to secure nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. He's looking to be the President of the Whole Wide World, I guess. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-06-01 4:36:57 PM |
| #8 "After months of studying the problem I have concluded that it would be bad if some terrorists got ahold of nuclear weapons. And I'm even willing to say that in public." Didn't I tell youse guys Kerry was quick? I mean, we're dealing with a really first-class intellect here. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-06-01 4:04:01 PM |
| #7 No the gravest threat to America is Hanoi John. Self made patriot anti-war, disgrace your flag, country and uniform for political gain weasel. No you Mr Kerry are our gravest threat. |
| Posted by: Bill Nelson 2004-06-01 1:41:05 PM |
| #6 Hey, isn't this rather unilateral of Kerry? Where's the UN and our allies in all of this? Shouln't the terrorists get a veto here? |
| Posted by: Chris Smith 2004-06-01 1:21:17 PM |
| #5 The Bush Administration has done nothing to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Libya wasn't pursuing them. Libya isn't selling out the nuclear ambitions of Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan at this very moment. AQ Khan continues to proliferate. The IAEA hasn't been pressured to declare Iran in violation. Saddam Hussein's regime wasn't removed (ensuring that they will never get nukes). Stephen Hayes's new book doesn't show any connections between al Qaeda and Iraq's Mukhabarat. North Korea is desperate for a deal but American intransigence is blocking any hoped-for successes. There are not 100,000+ US troops on Iran's (or Syria's) doorstep. John Kerry has always voted to strengthen the US military and the US intelligence agencies. John Kerry supports promoting American values in implementing US foreign policy. John Kerry voted to reduce US dependence on foreign oil by drilling in ANWR. All of these things are true. Welcome to John Kerry Bizarro-World. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-06-01 1:19:16 PM |
| #4 Raj - those kinds of measures are for the little people. Surely you don't expect the Kerry-Heinz's to drive economical SUV's, yachts, jets? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-01 1:09:05 PM |
| #3 The Agreed Framework was an agreed failure. If the Nork's completely disarm, they'll get something for dinner besides Atkins approved grass & tree bark. To do otherwise (Agreed Framework II?) simply demonstrates that people like Kerry are idiots & fools for failing to learn from past failures. |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-06-01 12:59:11 PM |
| #2 American values to defeat threats and freeing the United States from its "dangerous dependence on Middle East oil. Here's an idea - why don't we put some wind farms down on Nantucket Island? Senator? Senator?? |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-06-01 12:54:39 PM |
| #1 He has said he would adopt a two-track policy of continuing the six-party talks that include Russia, Japan, China and South Korea while also holding direct discussions with Pyongyang. problem with that, is, once you start bilateral talks what incentive do the Nkors have to take the 6 power talks seriously. The fear is that this becomes JUST bilateral talks, with the Nkors trying milk the US for goodies in exchange for limiting their nuke program. Which sets a bad precedent for the rest of the world. I am concerned, this was NOT a good move by Kerry. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-01 12:52:19 PM |