Democrats & Liberals Archives

No Nukes!

President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin are exploring a partnership to provide other countries with nuclear reactor fuel for generating electricity. This is an important step in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and I applaud the President for finally coming around to another good Democratic idea.

The current Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows countries to develop peaceful nuclear technology to a point where they can quickly weaponize it -- and then withdraw from the treaty. Iran and North Korea are both examples of how the system can be abused. But by controlling the lifecycle of the nuclear fuel, as Bush and Putin propose, countries who wish to operate nuclear power plants can do so without having to develop technology that can also be used to create weapons.

Once again, President Bush must be lauded for finally coming around to a Democratic idea. When Senator Kerry proposed this during the 2004 Presidential campaign, he was skewered by Bush and his supporters. I'm just happy that the President is a big enough man to flip-flop on an important issue like this.

[Side note: IAEA Director, Mohamed ElBaradei, made a similar pitch last year. His version is pretty much the same as the Bush/Putin program, but would put the IAEA in charge.]

Russia (with China's backing) offered to supply nuclear fuel to Iran as a way to forestall UN sanctions, and I hope Iran is smart enough to seal the deal. Russia and China put a lot of diplomatic capital at stake to hold off the EU and the US while they try to work out the details, and if the Iranians walk out, they'll have no choice but to go along with the sanctions.

And BTW, kudos to President Bush and Dr. Rice for deciding -- after four years of impotent threats -- to finally work with the international community on this issue. As Dr. Rice said, "it was the United States that was the problem in the Iranian situation." I'm glad she convinced President Bush to unite with our allies, rather than continue to let Iran play the US and the EU off against one another.

I'm optimistic about the Russia/Iran deal: Either Iran accepts and dismantles its enrichment program, or China and Russia are forced to back UN Security Council sanctions. As a bonus -- if Iran makes the right choice -- precedent is set for a program that will strengthen the NPT. Congrats to President Bush for adopting another fine Democratic idea and finally playing as part of a team.

Posted by American Pundit at February 7, 2006 11:30 AM
Comments
Comment #121940

AP,

I wish I shared your optimism. But, the Iranians couldn’t care less what WE think is in (all?) OUR best interests, they care about what THEY think is in THEIR best interests. With the majority of Satan America’s battle ready troops tied up next door what they think is in their best interests is the only real question.
Unfortunately, given their President’s less than conciliatory speeches of late I don’t think they’re willing to play nice and wait until we’re strong enough to put them on the block. Instead, I think they’ll take the window of opportunity (whereby we can’t do squat) and do what they can to develop nuclear capabilities.

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #121944

The thing that history teaches:

The more important responsibility of this atomic energy agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. [Dwight D. Eisenhower, Atoms for Peace, 8 Dec 1953]

The non-proliferation issue is nonpartisan, and one which the entire world has grappled with for over fifty years.

Posted by: rba at February 7, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #121958

In response to AP:

“Satan America”?? WTF is wrong with you? I just don’t understand why you would refer to the American forces so disdainfully…I get so sick of the libs making the coalition forces look like the Gestapo. We are trying to bring peace to the world and help countries who want to be democratic become democratic. At least we didn’t go into it and when the going got tough, run like scared little bitches like good ol’ Billy boy did in Somalia. It’s bad enough that you libs will bring up an idea, give it up after mediocre scrutiny and then, when Bush adopts the program in a closely similar form, you latch on to it like children and scream for notoriety. If both parties could work together instead of locking horns all the time, imagine what could be accomplished. I know I should wish in one hand and shit in the other, because it will never happen. Oh, well…at least you still got the media(which is losing viewers and readers everyday…oops).

Posted by: Charlie at February 7, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #121964

Charlie…. Democrates run their party according to polls,and the extreme far side. Its amazing that they hate fox news. Oh i know why, Americans are sick of doom and gloom all the time. And are turning off the libs soap box service.

Posted by: philipz at February 7, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #121966

Charlie,

The Iranians refer to us as Satan all the time. What don’t you understand? I’d be happy to explain if I had that much time…

rba,

DDE knew the price of war. That’s why he spent so much time and energy trying to prevent another one.

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #121969

Charlie, phillipz -

You both missed it, completely. “Satan’s American troops” refers to Iran’s mindset. Are you so set to go up against your own neighbors that you’d even suggest an American would believe this? Is this what you want to beleive? Would you suggest that all “libs” feel this way?

btw - FOX news simply sucks. It’s an opinion, but there it is. I don’t hate Fox, it’s just a really sad attempt at jounalism.

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #121978

AP
By your reasoning, you can give credit for the Iraq war to Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Posted by: DAVID at February 7, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #121986

Charlie,

“We are trying to bring peace to the world and help countries who want to be democratic become democratic.”

Then lets help those that express the desire, AND show that they are willing to put their people where their desires are and join the fight.

I have no problem with our pushing the spread of Democracy, however I would hope that the people in those countries would step up to the plate and EARN their Democracy by fighting for it.
Sorry, purple thumbs are the least part of the fight for Democratic rule.
Democracy is something you earn. It cannot be given.

Posted by: Rocky at February 7, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #121989

No doubt…. and what a blast from the past, listen to the Republicans froth at the mouth…..

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congresstional.react.02/

Posted by: STS at February 7, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #121990

Tony,

If you think Fox News sucks from your liberal prospective you now know how I feel, from a conservative prospective, about CNN, CBS, ABC, the BBC, and to a lesser degree about NBC & MSNBC news.

You should feel pretty content … relatively I’ve had to listen to a lot more crap than you.

Concerning the Article: Congratulations to President Bill Clinton on accepting the Republican idea of the balanced budget and most all of the Contract With America … since those were conservative ideals. (And yes I think Bush spends too much on social programs, especially since it’s more than Clinton ever did … that’s why I’m a true conservative … because I’m also a fiscal conservative.)

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 7, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #122006

I applaud the President… President Bush must be lauded

Never thought I’d hear you say that…
Before you decide to flip-flop in hating Bush, though, keep in mind that exploring something and doing it are two different things.

On Iran, I think that Russia should be allowed to give them nuclear fuel ONLY IF they oversee the program and make sure Iran doesn’t produce weapons with it.
The Russians must be responsible for oversight and be willing to accept the consequences for failure if Iran produces nukes on their watch.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 7, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #122014

AHH LIBS - THERE SO JUVENILE, NAIVE, FUN AND SILLY - HOW BORING IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THEM

Posted by: mIKE at February 7, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #122013

AHH LIBS - THERE SO JUVENILE, NAIVE, FUN AND SILLY - HOW BORING IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THEM

Posted by: mIKE at February 7, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #122016

No new nukes is a great idea. We as a nation need to step up and make the committment ourselves. Do as we say and not as we do type attitudes will not foster respect in our hallowed words.

We must take part in proliferation. I think our current stockpile of nuclear weapons is sufficient, therefore why do we need to produce any more? It is disrespectful to nations such as Iran to say that we can have them and they cannot. We need to lead by example. Our current stock can kill the entire planet 10 times…

As the only nation on the planet that has used one of these weapons in war time, we can speak effectively to the great destructive force that is a crime against all of humanity when used, therefore as a civilized society we need to join in the crusade to make sure scarcely one is ever used again in the heat of battle.

Lets walk down a non-radioactive path together.

Posted by: tree hugger at February 7, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #122021

tree,

We make more to replace the old ones. There’s only so much PM you can do to a missle and ensure it’s viability.

I like the swords to plowshares idea though; nuclear power is safe if we take out the profit motive.

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #122023

STS,

They sounded just like the libs and dems of today. It is amazing how some things never change.

Posted by: Cliff at February 7, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #122024

“They sounded just like the libs and dems of today.”

“AHH LIBS - THERE SO JUVENILE, NAIVE, FUN AND SILLY - HOW BORING IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THEM”

“Democrates run their party according to polls,and the extreme far side. Its amazing that they hate fox news. Oh i know why, Americans are sick of doom and gloom all the time. And are turning off the libs soap box service.”

Wow - thanks for the insight. Sheeesh - and all this time I thought you guys just didn’t understand us.

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #122028

Tony, We understand you libs loud and clear! You the party of funding big bloated social programs and then making people do your bidding before they get any money.. Like highway funding, Make the speed limits what you libs want before you get the cash. We know ho you people are, And so do the american people, That is why your not in power any more

Posted by: philipz at February 7, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #122029

Thanks for the detailed explaanation phillipz. I file it away for now, but I’ll let ya know if it ever comes in handy.

Did you have something to add to the discussion, or are you just fishing for compliments?

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #122035

Now if we can get those dems to back some of those Reps ideas (ex. SS) we may actually make some serious headway in our nation. Are you sure Kerry didn’t flip-flop a few times on that idea as the polls swung? You know, he supported the war at one time as well, I think, early on, when polls supported it, ah forget…who knows what he supported or didn’t support.

Posted by: cumudgeon-at-large at February 7, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #122051

AP:
“Once again, President Bush must be lauded for finally coming around to a Democratic idea. When Senator Kerry proposed this during the 2004 Presidential campaign, he was skewered by Bush and his supporters.”

Those Republicans never have any original ideas (there, that’s in reply to the gazillion times I’ve heard this piece of crap from the righties about the left) — so why laud them when they finally get around to stealing the idea from someone who they shamelessly swiftboated?

Rocky:
I have no problem with our pushing the spread of Democracy, however I would hope that the people in those countries would step up to the plate and EARN their Democracy by fighting for it.

It’d be nice if that happened right here in America first, because it seems like the majority have no problems giving up their freedoms and discarding the Constitution in return for a highly debateable amount of safety.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 7, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #122082

Fox sucks because they do a lousy job of giving the news, not just because they are right of Pat Robertson. And unfortunately, ABC CNN and others are no longer liberal. If you don’t like them, it’s because you don’t like news that makes GW look bad. That’s why Fox spends so much time on the missing white girl of the month, and so little time on real news.

I think that GW et al are giving lip service(and that’s all it is)to the IAEA and UN nonproliferation is because they realize they don’t have the political support from their own party to go into Iran

Posted by: Loren at February 7, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #122083
nuclear power is safe

No, it’s not. We still don’t even understand enough to know what to do with the nuclear waste. Until we figure that out, and how not to have nuclear accidents, it’s not safe.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 7, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #122085

The single biggest issue with Nuclear Power is that we do not know how to stop it or turn it off. We are also creating extremely toxic waste that will outlast anything we can even consider building - probably to a factor of 100x.

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #122086

The only problem with nuclear waste is NIMBY.

Posted by: Loren at February 7, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #122094

Oh BTW the other problem with nuclear waste is that Haliburton will probably be awarded the contract to build the waste disposal sites.

Posted by: Loren at February 7, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #122103

Wait a minute, Wait a minute. I thought all yaall Librals were against nuclar power. Or is it ok for every country but the United States?
And what will Teddy think if he sobers up enough to read this?

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 7, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #122111

Ron Brown

It would be simpleminded to think that all liberals are the same. France, that country you red staters love to hate is mostly powered by nukes. I am a science teacher, and there are many liberals who don’t believe in science whenever it goes against their agenda. Nuclear energy is one such case. compare nuclear waste to global warming. No contest. Global warming is orders of magnitudes worse.

Posted by: Loren at February 7, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #122115

Loren -

I agree that one problem is much larger (global warming) and more pressing than the other (nuclear), however, that doesn’t mean either is acceptable. I think coal also fits into the unacceptable catagory. Yea, I know they have clean burning coal, but ya have to get it out of the ground, and if you’ve been reading the news lately from West Virginia, you know one of the many horrible conditions created by the coal industry.

There are some many other options that can make for such long range energy options, going nuclear seems very short sighted.

Solar is my favorite. We receive well over the equivalent of 3.5 years of our energy needs everyday from the sun. But I also don’t think thaat single ource of energy - or solely focusing on the source is the answer. We need to find better options to the appliances that we use everyday. Superheaters rather than water heaters - why do we need to constantly heat 50 gallons of water all day long just to use it in the early morning and evening. We need to upgrade the materials we put into our roads and houses.

As far as solving industrial needs for power - not too many ideas… it’s not an area I know much about.

Posted by: tony at February 7, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #122126
Tony, We understand you libs loud and clear! You the party of funding big bloated social programs and then making people do your bidding before they get any money.. Like highway funding, Make the speed limits what you libs want before you get the cash. We know ho you people are, And so do the american people, That is why your not in power any more

Posted by: philipz at February 7, 2006 05:03 PM

philipz,

Thanks for the partisan insight. Who just intituted the biggest expansion of a social program since Medicare was founded? Give you one guess- Republicans, its called the Medicare Drug Benefit, ever hear of it? As far as the federal government holding the states hostage, I agree, except remember that the Republicans have been in power of all branches for 5 years. Nothing goes to the President for signing without their blessing. So, why have the Republicans not fixed these things? Hmmmm.

I am so sick and tired of this rhetoric bullshit, back and forth. If this country swings one way or the other, it is not the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans in Washington, it is the fault of the people who hold the power- THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #122130

If I were Iran, I would go for the Nukes too. Iran is in a far better position than Pakistan and India. What happened to Pakistan and India? Oh yes… Bush LEGALIZED their Nuke Possession.

Posted by: Aldous at February 7, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #122137

Why can the U.S., Russia, G.B., France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and N. Korea have nukes, but Iran can’t ?

I could understand it if they were like Iraq, and had attacked Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, murdered millions of their own citizens, etc.

What right do countries with thousands of nukes have to tell other countries they can not ?

And, if they refuse, what are you going to do about it?

Perhaps the U.S. should be looking again at ICBM defense systems ?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 7, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #122166

Um How the F##k did this thread go from a means to bring safe fissile materials to Iran to a chestbeating frenzy for the dual parties that exchange agendas all the damn time based on populist pressures? damn people!

And yes Bush is doing something that was on a Democratic platform, Dems will do things that are on republican platforms, Welcome to America are you freakin’ new? It’s politics after all which mainly consists off butt watching and job security. Get a damn clue—they both do it just like Bush with his Katrina.

The only difference is Bush is ruining the country fiscally with trillions in debt while he does it. Oh we are so screwed in the hole with this guy—the dems are only beginning to find out the half of it.

Now “Nookyaler” talk. The thing I’m seeing is the potentiality for a bait and switch. First the bait offering Russia WHO WANTS TO SELL ARMS to Iran another option ready made fissile materials. THAT isn’t what Russia wants NOR does Iran (They want weapons production obviously) so you have these 2 (iran & Russia) not getting a damn thing either of them want. Bait is that it looks good on paper, the switch is that they will go ahead with the transactions they want anyway. this is big money to Russia whereas the materials for Nuclear power are a mere pittance in comparison.

There has to be a third component and that is world community which both Russia & Iran viemently reject. WE may have haulted the sale for the moment but they will resume unless Iran has a change which is quite unlikely. we did nothing to help Katami when he was in and opportunity missed. Things in the mideast are being pushed to the fringes by our intervention (read: invasion) in Iraq and our loyal support of Israel which brought Palestinian radical extremists to power.

We need a new tact there, and what is it? This answer to Russia & Iran will suffice temporary—now what else?

Posted by: Ahkmad the troll at February 8, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #122168

Wow. A Democrat can’t even heap praise on President Bush without suffering hateful attacks from Republicans. Why are Republicans all so hateful?

so why laud them when they finally get around to stealing the idea from someone who they shamelessly swiftboated?

I don’t know, Adrienne. I used positive feedback to train my dog, and it worked pretty well. When he did something right, I praised him and patted his head. Maybe that’ll work with President Bush, too.

Seriously, if President Bush wants to push through Democratic ideas like strengthen the NPT, work closely with allies and not be “the problem in the Iranian situation”, and work for energy independence, and train more teachers and reduce class sizes, etc, why not let him?

The guy’s going to be President for three more years. The sooner we get him trained, the better. ;)

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #122169

Another thing, how come you don’t see the supposedly Republican editors over in the red column touting Bush’s achievements?

All you ever see over there is ‘I hate liberal’ pieces and articles about how scared they are of terrorists.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #122171

And regarding the standard Lib diatribe that “Bush lied about WMD in Iraq” … the following tape shuts up even unreasonable liberals very neatly …

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Copy and paste the web address as necessary.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 8, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #122181

AP, you are missing the whole other side of the story. The US and Russia agree also to recover spent nuclear fuel making the US and Russia repositories for the absolutely most dangerous man made products on the face of the earth with a lethality that can last many millenia.

In addition, this deal opens the whole realm of private contractor middlemen and energy industry execs to profit handsomely from this transportation and exchange of nuclear fuel, creating a potential black market in the distribution chain with incentives ranging in the millions of dollars for a few workers to leave something unlocked, or unguarded during transport.

I am not saying the worse will happen since we have not yet seen the details. But, precisely because we have not seen the details, I am very skeptical about the actual benefits derived not being outweighed by new risks and dangers being created.

Now if Russia and the US agree to stockpile other nation’s spent fuel within a 2 mile radius of the seats of their respective governments, I will rest a little easier. HA!

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #122186
All you ever see over there is ‘I hate liberal’ pieces and articles about how scared they are of terrorists. Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 01:41 AM

AP,

If you want to know in advance what the Cons will be writing about, simply turn on conservative talk radio. It’s all the same BS there too, and seems to be the clearinghouse for conservative talking points.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 8, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #122187

David, I’d rather have that fissile material sitting around the US than being used to make weapons by Iran and North Korea (and Israel and Pakistan and Indonesia).

Sure, the details need to be worked out, but the goal is to keep the nuclear fuel lifecycle in trusted hands.

Ahkmad, no doubt Russia has financial motives in this, but I’d rather see them getting paid by the US (Bush earmarked millions for the program in the 2007 budget) than by Iran.

Ken, that movie just shows Democrats justifying President Clinton’s bombing of Iraq in 1998 (which we now know successfully destroyed all Iraqi WMD), and talking about how scary President Bush’s (faulty, we now know) intelligence was.

The worst thing that video shows is that, for some reason, some Democrats believed President Bush despite the UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq finding nothing.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 2:25 AM
Comment #122209

Transportation of nuclear waste is already considered a very sensitive and dangerous task.

Am I the only one worried about even higher radioactive enriched uranium being transported over sea and ground on such long distance???

Who care about making dirty bomb himself when your enemy will build it and transport it over the world!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 8, 2006 5:52 AM
Comment #122219

AP, I see, so you didn’t miss the other side of the story, you just choose to ignore it. That’s how unintended consequences occur. In this case, they could be huge.

I don’t have near the problem with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, or even N. Korea as I have of al-Queda. You see, if Iran has nuclear weapons, they are forced to contemplate mutally assured destruction (MAD) and in that contemplation, they have no choice but to recognize that the US can survive a nuclear attack from Iran, but, Iran could not survive a nuclear attack by the U.S.

I would like to see identity marking of fissile materials in a manner that would allow tracing dirty bombs back to their source of fissile material. If we could advertise that capability, we could establish a retalliatory policy to be directed at the source of the fissile material regardless of who delivers it for detonation on us or any of our allies.

Now that would be a deterrent policy with teeth in dealing with nations with nuclear capacity. It would also go a very long way toward keeping fissile materials out of the hands of terrorists by motivating nations with fissile materials to take the steps necessary to insure that such materials do not fall into the wrong hands, even by theft or accident.

I would also demand that if the US and Russia agree to this deal, that ONLY their respective militaries be permitted to handle the materials from origin to destination. NO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS! To introduce private contractors into the distribution system is to openly invite black marketeering of fissile materials in transit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2006 7:01 AM
Comment #122222

David, I’m not ignoring it. I actually like your proposals. The difference is, I don’t believe MAD will deter religious fanatics who believe the afterlife is better than this life — and Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic.

Not only that, we know that Iran works with and supports terrorists, including Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. If Ahmadinejad thinks the Holocaust never happened, then he may also think he could get away with giving terrorists a nuclear device.

No, the technical details of transporting, storing, and recycling fissionable material can be solved. But letting Ahmadinejad develop nuclear weapons is a very, very bad idea.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #122228

AP, so are you suggesting a preemptive invasion of Iran to prevent Ahmadinejad from acquiring nuclear weapons? Because nothing short of that can guarantee he won’t obtain them, if he wants them.

Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missiles with which to attack the US and our satellites could warn us if they were being built or shipped in. Iran is a regional threat, and its relationship with Hezbollah makes Iran a terrorist threat.

And precisely because Iran, even with nuclear weapons, could NOT hope to destroy America, we in the US MUST weigh the costs of all the options on the table. The cost of another preemptive invasion in Iran could very possibly trigger the global violent jihad against the west by millions of Islamic fundamentalists, as opposed to the several thousands we now have to deal with.

Additionally, it would leave us fighting wars on 4 fronts, Iraq, Iran, global terrorism and Afghanistan. Stretching our troops that thin would be cue N. Korea could use to reinvade S. Korea, or trigger further expanisionist activity by China.

I want to see all possible diplomatic channels used, I want to see every effort by the US to mend international fences in developing a true international cooperation in the steps necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuke weapons. And then, after all that, I want to see the regional nations within reach of Iran nukes, take up the military development and expenditures to halt the problem in their own backyard. Then, and only then, could I support the US committing itself militarily to step up and aid Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, France, and Germany in halting Iran’s nuke development.

The cost of dealing with Iran in the manner we dealt with Iraq, will be magnitudes greater than the costs we incurred in Iraq if we largely launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iran.

And these costs must be weighed be carefully, and with the real, not imagined, consequences taken into account, and with the lives and the future of our people living in America also taken considered on the scales. This cannot be about ideology or striking out at an opponent who poses no imminent threat to us. That path leads to global jihad, and quite possibly World War III.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #122257

everyone remember, the monkey attacked iraq only thinking that they had WMD. iran we know has the way of making nucular weapons, and we are just sitting back waiting, waiting for bush the storm in and make another mess, or waiting for him to wait to late?

Posted by: roger look at February 8, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #122276
AP, so are you suggesting a preemptive invasion of Iran to prevent Ahmadinejad from acquiring nuclear weapons? …I want to see all possible diplomatic channels used…

HELLO! Did you even read the article, David? I’m praising Bush for finally working with the international community to peacefully ensure Iran doesn’t acquire nukes.

I don’t understand why you’re objecting to that, and then turning around and saying we should do that.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #122279

AP, I was responding to your previous comment, not the article. It appeared by your comments that you were taking a different tac than in your article.

I am also pointing out that there are many paths that lead to invasion with or without international cooperation, and therefore, the options need to be weighed carefully. It is easy enough to move toward invasion under the guise of seeking reconciliation. Managing appearances was the Bush team’s area of expertise and they are still relying on it to cover and disguise their real actions and intents.

Beware of Bush appearances to act practically and rationally as oppposed to ideologically, is all I am trying to caution. I believe your praise of Bush’s actions is very much premature. You are responding to what his advisors are saying without knowing yet, what they are actually doing. With our forces alread mounted on Iran’s border, the temptation to move against Iran before drawing down troops in Iraq must be enormous among some of Bush’s advisors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #122285

I think this deal with Iran is problem THE most important and potentially explosive issue we will face - WAY more so than Iraq.

Remember - North Korea is watching with grave concern. They have been named as on of three in the ‘axis of evil’ and we bobble this process - if we invade or bully Iran, I think we can expect extremely irrationale and dangerous reactions from N. Korea. If we bring the hammer down on Iran, North Korea will ‘know’ for certain that they are next.

“Look Mommy! South Korea just evaporated!”

Posted by: tony at February 8, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #122288

sorry - that post should’ve read “Iran is PROBABLY THE most…”

Posted by: tony at February 8, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #122302

It doesn’t matter what initiatives to provide nuclear fuel to Iran are offered. They haven’t been and won.t be accepted. The Iranian leadership is not interested in a source of energy. Their only goal is to become a nuclear power.

We, the global community, will be in deep sh*t if that happens. The way I see it diplomacy will fail because Iran doesn’t want a diplomatic option. Harsher methods will be required.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 8, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #122330

AP:

Another thing, how come you don’t see the supposedly Republican editors over in the red column touting Bush’s achievements?

All you ever see over there is ‘I hate liberal’ pieces and articles about how scared they are of terrorists.

I’d suggest that you read some of the threads in the red column that are written with positives thatseem to have missed. Here is just a brief sampling from the February archives:

The Boundary of Privacy—describes how the US surveillance program enhances security.

Bush Right About Democracy—discusses the idea that Bush is right about his democracy agenda

Hamas Landslide and the Regional Context—talks about the good and bad news regarding the Democratic elections held in the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

If you simply go in with a preconceived impression, it will never change. If you go in with an open mind, its surprising how much you can learn.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 8, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #122377

It’s a good idea, for the most part; and as long as there’s compliance to the International community. We don’t need nuclear material floating out there (although there is already!) and someone from Al-Qaida or another fanatical group getting a hold of it, etc. I can applaud the President for this one as well.

Posted by: Martin at February 8, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #122378

Philipz

We understand you libs loud and clear! You the party of funding big bloated social programs and then making people do your bidding before they get any money. Like highway funding, Make the speed limits what you lib’s want before you get the cash. We know ho you people are, And so do the American people, That is why your not in power any more.


Actually most of the highway funding you are referring to was handled by the Reagan Administration, in specific the Sec/ of Transportation - none other than Elizabeth Dole. It was she that insisted on the mandatory seatbelts, before states could receive the highway funding that had already been set aside for them. Apparently she decided I, and the rest of the drivers in the US, weren’t capable of making good decisions when it came to driving their own cars.

Last time I checked, both Reagan, and Dole were and strong Republican figures. Dole still is - I know that because I voted against her for that reason when she first ran for Senate from NC. (I no longer live there)I don’t like having my rights usurped by any governmnet offical. The highways funding belonged to the states, not to Dole to decide whether it had been ‘earned’.

As for the 55 mile speed limit,I believe that was intended to off-set the gas prices of the 70’s, not because of highway funding. I honestly don’t remember who was in control of the government at the time - but I do remember the gas lines.

As for funding big bloated social reform, at least the last Democratic President managed to balance the budget. From what I understand, our current budget has reached beyond frighting - straight on out of our world and up towards the moon.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 8, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #122464

” Their only goal is to become a nuclear power.

We, the global community, will be in deep sh*t if that happens. The way I see it diplomacy will fail because Iran doesn’t want a diplomatic option. Harsher methods will be required.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 8, 2006 11:13 AM “

GKN,
I fear you’re right. Look at the behavior a stupid cartoon resulted in. I still think we must make every attempt possible at diplomacy. Otherwise we’ll truly be going it alone.

Then comes the big question: can we go it alone?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 8, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #122470

“As for the 55 mile speed limit,I believe that was intended to off-set the gas prices of the 70’s, not because of highway funding. I honestly don’t remember who was in control of the government at the time - but I do remember the gas lines.
Posted by: Linda H. at February 8, 2006 02:49 PM”

That was to the best of my recollection Jimmy Carter, IMO the most denigrated American of my lifetime.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 8, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #122507

On Fox News:
I considered adding Fox as a reliable news source. Problem was, they just kept on trumpeting the finding of Chemical Weapons, and those reports kept on collapsing into modest claims, then contradictory reports.

The Pundits also really get me. They’re nothing better than mouthpieces for talking points. Their shows serve to preserve a bubble of ignorance about those who get their news and their analysis nowhere else, and they will run with counterfactual information, even after they’ve been corrected on it. They’ll make outrageous rants, then complain about mistreatment when their statements rebound back on them. Case in point: O’Reilly invite al-Qaeda to bomb the Coit Tower in San Francisco.

They just tell their viewers what poor persecuted souls they are. It makes me sick. They who participate in the sliming of many honorable people, left, right, and middle, just because they don’t support the party line.

People like them are part of the reason why at a young age, despite having grown up admiring Bush Sr. and Reagan, that I swore off the Republican Party. This is what it seems to be nowadays: a party with zealots running the show, and the more moderate folks too afraid to see their candidates lose elections to stand up against the corruption and incompetence.

I remember Republican presidents who engaged in the world, rather than indulging their xenophobia, and even revelling in it. I remember Republicans willing to raise taxes to improve our fiscal condition, not obsessed with opposing taxes no matter what. I remember Republicans who could run wars successfully.

The GOP has descended into a hell of subjectivity, where no information is accepted if it doesn’t come from the conservative media with a conservative bias. Many liberals could care less whether they get slant with their coverage. Many prefer to forgo it, in fact, being irked by the idea that somebody’s feeding them their opinions. Republicans, unfortunately constantly dwell on where the news coverage comes from, instead of discerning the real nature of what they’re getting.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #122513

Why can the U.S., Russia, G.B., France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and N. Korea have nukes, but Iran can not ?

Iran is not as bad as Iraq was (i.e. Iraq attacked Kuwait, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and murdered millions of their own citizens, etc.).

If Iran does not have a significiant track record of unjustified aggression against other countries, and the U.S. attacks Iran for building nukes, then I firmly believe the U.S. is the aggressor.

Same way with North Korea.

We can not pre-emptively attack these countries (militarily) until they commit unjustified aggression against some another nation.

What could reduce the desire for nations to want to develop nuclear weapons? Telling a sovereign nation what they can and can’t do within the borders of their own nation is definitely not the way to reduce that desire.

So, where did any nation(s) ever get the idea they have the right to dictate that other nations can not build nuclear weapons?

Perhaps we should leave them alone, keep a very close eye on them, start working on improved defense systems, missle defense systems, and wait until they (if ever) attack Israel, or any other nation?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #122524
This is what it seems to be nowadays: a party with zealots running the show, and the more moderate folks too afraid to see their candidates lose elections to stand up against the corruption and incompetence.

I used to be Republican. No more. But, after removing the partisan blinders, it’s obvious that both sides just take turns. One side might be a little worse than the other, but it is in reality a failure of both, because the root problem is the incumbents in all parties.

Newcomers to congress need our help. We need to shed the partisan blinders and help the newcomers, who I believe, want to do the right thing.

The root problem is most (if not all) incumbents will not allow newcomers to pass any reforms that will reduce the incumbents’ power or opportunities for self-gain. The deck is severely stacked to retain their cu$hy incumbent seats.

The partisan warfare lets incumbent continue to do that. It empowers them. Incumbents on both sides do it.

Our government (incumbents of both parties) are now treading on thin ice with Iran and N. Korea. Until they violate another nation, we should leave them alone (but keep a close eye on them, and prepare for what they may do someday). Otherwise, we are the bullies, and we will only make them more determined to build more nuclear weapons.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 8, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #122530

“I remember Republican presidents who engaged in the world, rather than indulging their xenophobia, and even revelling in it. I remember Republicans willing to raise taxes to improve our fiscal condition, not obsessed with opposing taxes no matter what. I remember Republicans who could run wars successfully.”

Stephen,
I remember such Republicans myself. That was then, this is now. I just wonder how far down we must go before we “rediscover” the true American spirit.

Or maybe they all had us fooled all along.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 8, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #122534

“Why can the U.S., Russia, G.B., France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and N. Korea have nukes, but Iran can not ? “

d. a. n.

Iran has pretty much outright called for the destruction of Israel. Is that a good enough answer?

These are people that are going ape shit over cartoons. Should we trust them with a nuke?

Are you saying we should just let Iran pursue nuclear warheads? They have missiles capable of reaching parts of Europe!

Is diplomacy less costly than war?
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 8, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #122540

Nothing wrong with diplomacy.
But, other than that, we should leave them alone.
If Iran attacks Israel, Israel can fight back and we can help. If Iran nukes Israel, or any other nation, then Israel can nuke them, and so can the U.S. I don’t really think Iran is going to do that. Iran can’t out gun the U.S. or Europe. It would be suicide. We could literally turn Iran into a grave.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #122545

“Nothing wrong with diplomacy.
But, other than that, we should leave them alone.
If Iran attacks Israel, Israel can fight back and we can help. If Iran nukes Israel, or any other nation, then Israel can nuke them, and so can the U.S. I don’t really think Iran is going to do that. Iran can’t out gun the U.S. or Europe. It would be suicide. We could literally turn Iran into a grave.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 12:18 AM “

d.a.n.,
You don’t have a clue, and the worst part is Bush & Co. are probably just as clueless as you.

I’m not attacking you BTW, i am attacking your message, which is “nuke me”, I’ll “nuke you”.

Holy mackeral Andy!

I just might start praying again.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 9, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #122619

KansasDem,

I agree with you. MAD deterrence may don’t apply fine with suicidal fanatism because you can’t anymore assume their rationality regarding nukes:

  • No rogue states will develop nuclear weapons (or, if they do, they will stop behaving as rogue states and start to subject themselves to the logic of MAD)
  • No rogue commanders will have the ability to corrupt the launch decision process
  • All leaders with launch capability care about the survival of their subjects
  • No leader with launch capability would strike first and gamble that the opponent’s response system would fail

Back to hypothetic Iran nukes strike(s), sure, we’ll survive, them not. None of them. But it’s no more *the* MAD doctrine but a probably very painfully NUTS one (Nukes Utopian Threat Survival) on the survivor side…

d.a.n, what will be your position if Iran was in south america? Will being within nukes attack range affect your opinion?

PS: Please phone Dr Strangelove. Quick.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 9, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #122630

If diplomacy will work, fine. Try it.
If that fails, the only way to stop any nation from making nukes is to attack and destroy their facilities.
That is pre-emptive.
Is that what you are recommending?

We don’t know what Iran will do.
We should not be the aggressors.

The only other solution is for the rest of the world to unite in sanctions.
That didn’t work against Iraq did it?

And, if South America or anyone anywhere has nukes, fine. We can’t stop it. It will only get worse from here on out. Since 1945, we’ve gone from 1 nation with nukes to many with nukes.

So, we can have them, and no one else can ?
That’s asking for trouble and part of the problem ?

It is inevitable that WMD will be manufactured.
Especially if some nations think they have the right to tell other nations what they can and can’t do within their own sovereign borders.

It is inevitable that some nutcases will someday get their hands on WMD. We must be prepared. We can’t run around attacking everyone pre-emptively. Now if the U.N. ever got it’s act together, then there may be a way to convince nations that build WMD to not do it. But, the U.N. is ineffective, and always has been. In fact, the U.N. is corrupt, and can be bought off, as evidenced with the oil-for-food scandal. Personally, I wish they would move the U.N. to somewhere else. It is worse than our dysfunctional, bought-and-paid-for congress and executive branch.

So, am I correct? Are you advocating military action against Iran? If so, then why not N.Korea? And, why did we let Pakistan, China, Russia, India, England, France, and Irsael have nukes? Get the picture?

Our efforts would be better utilized by staying ahead technologically always, and developing defensive systems. We could even share those defensive systems. It’s a never ending arms race and it is inevitable. But, you can’t go around attacking people just based on what a few people in a country say they might do. Sure, try to use diplomacy, keep an eye on them, and work to be prepared, improve defenses and offensive capabilities, and be patient.

Now, I don’t know why you tell me I don’t have a clue. My opinion is reasonable. I simply don’t believe in pre-emptively attacking other nations unless they have a track-record of attacking other nations (such as Saddam attacked all of his neighboring countries: Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, shooting at jets in the no-fly zone, etc.). First of all, that is attacking the messenger, not the message. But that’s OK. I’ve heard much worse. I once said the very, same, identical thing to someone else, and was reprimanded (and rightfully so) by the watchblog manager. Do it enough, and you’ll get banned.

Dr. Strangelove? Great movie. I’ve been meaning to add that to my collection.

CONCLUSION: The nations of the world must learn to unite to police the planet. Without that combined, consistent, even-handed force, there will always be rogue nations and bullies. The best deterrent is the combined force of nations of the planet to prohibit aggression and possession of WMD. One way to accomplish that is for all nations to have a limited amount of WMD, but not enough to defeat all nations. Thus, nations combined can never be defeated by one rogue nation. But, that means we must attack nations that start building more WMD than the limit allows. If that is the doctrine you are advocating, then I’d say that might be the smartest thing to do. But, without a united effort of all nations, it won’t work. It may be that we are doomed to self-destruction? I don’t have all of the answers, and I don’t think anyone does. But I definitely do not think the United States should pre-emptively attack Iran at this point in time, and not unless we have the combined support of a vast majority of the nations on the world. This is a lesson for the world. The world needs to decide how they want to deal with this growing threat to human existence. Then make it the law of the world. Then devise the system I spoke of so that the combined force of all nations, not just one, can enforce the law.

I don’t like WMD, but in an imperfect world, they are currently necessary. The planet is getting smaller, and nations must start cooperating about such issues, or we will destroy ourselves. But, there is no doubt that WMD is a serious concern. I would not want my neighbor, no matter how peaceful his intentions are, to own large explosives. There proximity alone is a threat to my neighborhood. But, without a law against it, how am I to prevent it? Now, such laws do exist for us in the U.S. against owning such explosives (for obvious reasons; they endanger others). But, no such laws exist for the world. The U.N. is negligent and the peaceful nations of the world are too complacent. What we need is a world police force. The U.S. can not do it alone. If we want to make meaningful strides, we should work toward that goal. That sounds like Utopia, but without it, we may indeed be doomed to self-destruction.

Ever see “The Day the Earth Stood Still” ?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #122770

with respect for all the views posted today, i think you have all missed the reason for the current situation with iraq and iran. saddam started using the euro to sell his oil and we immediately went into recession, and perhaps by coincidence{though i doubt it]we rebounded after we invaded iraq and returned the dollar as the currency to use when buying oil. Iran is going a huge step farther in march 06 when it will start up its own oil bourse and will use the euro as its currency. since we went off the gold standard during the nixon administration our dollar has been propped up by foreign countries who continue to buy dollars knowing that its worth less and less every week. why?…because in 1973 we convinced the saudis to use the dollar in all oil transactions, which in turn saved us from economic collapse,{check out the inflation of the dollar since we left the gold standard} but now our currency is backed not by gold {which is mandated by the constitution} but by oil. if the world switches to the euro to buy oil{ china russia and the eu all would love to dump the dollar} there will be no need for china russia japan etc. etc. to continue buying dollars and in effect propping up our economy and financing our national debt. if iran is allowed to start up this new oil exchange we will see hyperinflation in this country because our dollar will be backed by nothing, and the fed will have no choice but to hyper inflate to allow the country to finance the government and the national debt. its no coincidence that starting in march 06 the fed will not realease M3 data any longer {which is against the law}. M3 is the money supply that the fed prints every day. every day the fed prints more money our dollar becomes worth less and less. last week alone the fed printed 25 billion dollars. bush invaded iraq to stave off economic crisis in this country and either we will invade iran also or some deal will be made where iran will not switch to the euro.

Posted by: mike h at February 9, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #122780

Interesting theory.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #123041

Global warming AND COOLING has been going on for millions of years on this planet. It is a scientific fact that the earth was warmer in 5000 B.C.E. than it is today. I suggest the book “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. Before reading it, I too blindly followed the global warming mantra. The evidence that man’s activities are heating the globe just isn’t there. Earth is currently coming out of one of its colder periods, from about 900 C.E. to about 1800, A time known as the “little ice age.” Don’t just blindly believe anything any politician tells you, no matter which party they represent.

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #123049

And BTW, it is pretty much guaranteed that Earth will experience more ice ages just as it has since long before man showed up.

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #123205

Duano,

That is not a valid argument. The evidence that the earth’s temperature is rising is inarguable. The data that suggests influence from fossil fuel emmisions is compelling, but not absolute. The evidence that the earth is in a natural cycle is plausible.
The problem is they both may be true and we are simply making things much worse then they would otherwise be.

Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #123260

That was to the best of my recollection Jimmy Carter, IMO the most denigrated American of my lifetime.

KansasDem

Only because he was probably the most honest politican we’ve had in a long time. We tend to complaim about how corrupt most politicans are, but when we elect an honest one we are realy put out.

Not that I voted for Carter. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, however. I wish I had.

Posted by: Linda H at February 10, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #123344

Carbon dioxide is not always a bad thing. Plants need it to survive, and they convert it into oxygen that animals need. Deforestation is a far more destructive adventure than carbon emissions. I think we can agree that it needs to be curbed. The earth is getting warmer, but it will cool down in the future, just like it always has. The problem is in the way the data is collected. Nearly every research that has been done into global warming was funded by people who had a vested interest in its reality, (or, in Chevron’s case, in disproving it). If you’re looking for a certain phenomenon diligently during the course of your study, sooner or later you’re going to find it. The environmental groups NEED global warming to happen in order to keep people fearing catastrophe and funding their projects. Now, since it has been proven that the planet constantly goes through warming and cooling cycles, they have given their crisis a snazzy new nickname, “Climate Change”. That way they can blame mankind (the U.S. in particular) when the earth gets scorching hot AND when the next ice age arrives. Pretty clever, when you think about it. We need an environmental movement that is truly interested in results for the planet, not their pocketbooks. I dislike smog and air pollution as much as anyone else, but using these very real problems as a way to take political cheapshots at one country or one party is irresponsible to say the least, but even worse when it’s used to line people’s pockets.

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #123348

BTW, Jimmy Carter spent his entire presidency being one of the worst presidents in history, and the rest of his life trying to convince everybody that he wasn’t.

Posted by: Duano at February 10, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #123360

Duano,

At least he didn’t start a war costing 2200+ US deaths and rising, a war that will cost a trillion dollars in the end, give tax cuts of nearly a trillion dollars to the 1% who don’t need it, etc…
I’d much rather have an ineffective honest president than the lying asswipe we have now.

Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #123469

ahkmad the troll…The trillions of debt you speak of…Do we really owe the money to someone?? F them don’t pay…no one pays us back..

Posted by: tim at February 11, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #123571

my favorite jimmy carter quote of all time….on national tv in 1979..{at the current rate of consumption the world will run out of oil in 1990} my next favorite is { i told ortega to number the ballots because he was ahead in the polls by 16 points 1 week before the election}

Posted by: mike h at February 11, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #124265

Duano,

Global warming AND COOLING has been going on for millions of years on this planet. It is a scientific fact that the earth was warmer in 5000 B.C.E. than it is today. I suggest the book “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton.

I didn’t knew Crichton was a climate scientific. Beside, nobody contest the global climate cycle but the speed at which it’s currently changing.

Before reading it, I too blindly followed the global warming mantra. The evidence that man’s activities are heating the globe just isn’t there.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
What? That’s stupid!?
Agreed. But I’m going off-topic here.

Back to evidence, Greenhouse gases emission have reached level that were never found on earth in a very short period. That’s fact. Proven one. Most of them were due to human activities. That’s a fact. A proven one. Many suspects this may have influence on climate. That’s debated.
If you or Crichton have a scientific proof that it has NO effect on climate, we’ll glad to hear it. Be our guest.

Don’t just blindly believe anything any politician tells you, no matter which party they represent.

Climate experts are scientifics, not politicians. And I’m inclined to value their opinions more than politicians these days. Dunno why, maybe I lost the last bit of trust I once had in politicians during these last years.

Could you explain more your “don’t trust politicians but trust Michael Crichton” to us? Because, sorry, I wont fall in this too visible Crichton’s “buy my book” trap…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 13, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #124346

Phillipe,
We are currently living in the earth’s fourth atmosphere. Shortly after the earth cooled, guess which gases were the most abundant in the atmosphere. Methane and, you guessed it, carbon dioxide. Might want to check your facts on that one. And as far as trusting climate scientists, turns out they don’t all drink the global warming cool-aid like you. There is a large minority of them who refuse to believe that temperature changes inside huge cities that were once small towns indicates a global trend. Big city heat is a proven fact, and no one was taking temperatures in the wilderness even forty years ago, let alone enough to really gauge temperature differences over the past hundred. You might LOL that I noted a MINORITY of scientists seem to be thinking for themselves, but then again, do you agree with the majority who voted overwhelmingly for GWB?(Don’t kid yourself, the popular vote was a landslide.) They may very well have been wrong, just like the majority of doctors who believed that bloodletting was a legitimate cure, or the scientists who see a global trend when they are paid to. Both conclusions came long before there was sufficient, UNBIASED research. And BTW, go talk to the people on the eastern seaboard about that two feet of snow, and they’ll tell you where you can stick your global warming.

Posted by: Duano at February 13, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #124356

Average temps 1930—————2000
Pasadena, CA 62F 64F
Berkeley, CA 57F 57.5F
Death Valley, CA 76F 77F
McGill, NV 48F 47F
Guthrie, OK 61F 60F
Boulder, CO 51F 50F
Truman, MO 57F 55F
Greenville, SC 61.5F 60F
Ann Arbor, MI 49F 48F

Is it global warming or cooling? Not enough evidence for either. Check my facts at United States Historical Climatology Network(USHCN)

Posted by: Duano at February 13, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #124359

Sorry, should have put a ———- between first and second temps.

Posted by: Duano at February 13, 2006 2:16 PM
Post a comment