Stop the nuclear arms buildup - an issue all Dems can agree on?

[arendt]

(moved by arendt from Gen Disc)

I tried to be neutral in GD, listing Kerry and
Edwards, when I should have just said all viable
candidates - so they locked me.

I really do not want this issue to be turned into
a bashing thread against any candidate. I am just
floating an idea that I hope we could all agree on
for a change.

--------------------------

Whenever I see a list of all the outrages of the
Bush Crime Family, Iraq and the tax cuts are at
the top.

Now, we are told that the Iraq War is "old news",
or "too leftie"; so its not an issue we can all
agree on.

The tax cut issue has produced an argument over
whether or not to roll back the middle class part
of the great Bush Looting. Again, not a clear
issue.

For me, the worst thing that this administration
has done is to work overtime at getting the nuclear
genie back out of the bottle. Here is a list
of things it has done or refused to do that
contribute to making the world much less safe.

1. Restarting US production of weapons-grade Uranium/
Plutonium.
2. Restarting research on advanced nuclear weapons.
3. Changing policy to allow first-use of nukes. (unheard of)
4. Tearing up the 1972 ABM treaty. (unheard of)
5. Funding and deploying the ludicrous Star Wars system.
6. De-funding the de-commissioning of old Soviet nukes.

7. Refusing to stop use of Depleted Uranium munitions,
whose dust our soldiers have been breathing in Iraq.
8. Promoting the construction of new nuclear power plants.

The first six items are matters of foreign/defense policy,
and they are way beyond any previous administration's
no-go line.

The last two items merely expose US citizens (and the
countries we bomb) to unnecessary doses of radiation.

------------

What are Kerry and Edwards position on Nuclear Strategy?

Is this an issue which can unite Democrats and hurt Bush?

Given what a lying jerk Bush is perceived as now, isn't
it time to ask, ala Barry Goldwater, if this is a guy
who should have his hand on the nuclear football? The
closest he gets to football is a TV and a pretzel, and
he almost killed himself.

arendt

[HFishbine]

1. The things you cite

are funded by congress. John Edwards failed to opposes a single Bush military budget.

[arendt]

2. Please, can we be positive.

Are you saying Edwards would be unable to speak
against the restarting of offensive nuclear
weapons programs and first use doctrines?

In defense of any candidate, they didn't get to
vote on the details, the GOP controls the process.
The Dems get to vote yea or nay on the final
bill; a Dem voting against a defense bill is
political suicide. They may scream and holler
and try,futilely, to amend, delay, or filibuster,
but in the end, the GOP has control.

Of course, the IWR resolution was in a completely
different category. But, I'm not talking about
something divisive, like IWR. I'm trying to find
some issue that all Dems can agree on - like
"haven't we got enough trouble without restarting
the nuclear arms race?".

Please, try to be positive. Do you see any candidates
who would refuse to use such language in their
campaign?

arendt

[arendt]

3. A lot of the items I listed were PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS, not...

laws passed by Congress.

Bush tore up the SALT treaty, then the GOP refused
to bring the issue of the Constitutionality of such
a maneuver to the floor.

Bush issued a National Security memorandum changing
the policy to first-use. No Congressional input there.

Funding for de-commissioning Russian nukes - I don't
know how this got cut. Perhaps Bush just sat on the
money, or underfunded it. Nothing is transparent
anymore.

But that lack of transparency can work for us. We
just list what has been done on the all-GOP government's
watch and say, the Dems tried, but these Strangelovian
maniacs were out of control.

arendt

[HFishbine]

4. Fair enough

Some of the items you mention senators did have a chance to vote on individually. Here's one which suggests that you may have an uphill battle:


-------
National Missle Defense Act, which stated it is the policy of the U.S. to deploy a National Missile Defense system as soon as it is technologically possible.

Edwards: Yes
Kerry: Yes

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2187&can_id=CNC68243

and

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2187&can_id=S0421103

[arendt]

6. OK. You win. The DLC crowd is hopeless. They have whored...

on every issue of any value to the ordinary
citizen, from job outsourcing to offensive
nuclear warfare.

You are right.

I will add nukes to my list of issues for the
new progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

So, is there ANY issue we can all agree on
except getting rid of Bush?

arendt

[HFishbine]

9. Huh?

What?

[arendt]

10. Sorry if posts 6 and 7 are contradictory...

I wrote 6 before I read Dr. F's first post.

In post six, I was agreeing with you that it
seems that the no offensive nukes issue was
not a unifier. But, I still have the option
of using it to build suppport for the grassroots
movement to redefine the Democratic Party.
Clear?

But then, I read that Kerry had voted against
it all those times. So, maybe we have to separate
the asinine, but non-nuclear ABM system from
offensive nukes. After all, we paid that blackmail
to the Mil-Ind Complex for 30 years already.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Dr. F. to explain
the vote you quoted.

peace

arendt

[HFishbine]

11. Gotcha

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or what. Anyway, I'm with you on your motives.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Kerry Has Been A Lifelong Opponent Of Nuclear Arms

This has been something he has been passionate about from his earliest days.

To give you the gist of his record, see what the GOP has to say:

http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3312

[arendt]

7. Hey, Mr. Fishbine - what do you say to all these anti-ABM votes?

From Dr. Funk...'s RNC link:

Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42, 8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5, 8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4, 6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D 35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34: R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262: Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S 1635, CQ Vote #157: Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

------------

But, Q for Dr. F.: why then, did Kerry vote for the last
version, as Mr. Fishbine reports?

arendt

[arendt]

8. GOP = glow-in-the-dark, oil-soaked, peasants n/t