>I believe the House last week approved Bush's battlefield nukes plan with
>bipartisan support.
>
>Chuck
Actually, you would believe this in error. Amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (which is what we're talking about here) to use the money planned by the Republicans for nukes for conventional weapons lost on a party line vote (with some exceptions, which to this extent would support you argument). A vote to recommit the bill entire bill with instructions lost on a party line vote.
Additionally, this plan, as you know was developed by the Bush administration in its Nuclear Posture Review. Further, it was Senate Republicans who first proposed and passed a mini-nuke plan in 2000. such a plan was rejected by Clinton's Joint Chiefs Chair -- the guy with the name I can't spell (who now works for Carlyle) -- as undemrining non-proliferation treaties etc.
Fudging over these events isn't helpful, in my view. We know that this is a new development (usable nuclear weapons and actual plans to use them as well as demolishing the treaties the US signed, including Clinton, to prevent us from going in this direction) pushed and accomplished by the Bush administration.
Bush has returned the threat of global nuclear war to the table single-handedly. The people can protest until they are blue in the face and all locked up (as exemplified by his drive for war in Iraq), but Bush will advance this further if he is re-elected.
I rant too long,
Best,
Joel Wendland
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access fights spam and pop-ups – now 3 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/