These remarks from Iran and Russia may not

• In Quotes: The US Election Reacton sm - m
  • The ones I find concerning: - sam
    • These remarks from Iran and Russia may not - be as worrisome and one might think (sm)
      • Frankly, I would be more comfortable with YOU... - sam
        • OK, sam. Another moment in history has come to pass. - For the first time ever....sm
          • I'll give you this much concession - on the subject. sm
  • By my read, not a single negative response among them. - This is uplifting, indeed. nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

U.S. and Russia to Enter Civilian Nuclear Pact
Bush Reverses Long-Standing Policy, Allows Agreement That May Provide Leverage on Iran

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 8, 2006; A01

President Bush has decided to permit extensive U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Russia for the first time, administration officials said yesterday, reversing decades of bipartisan policy in a move that would be worth billions of dollars to Moscow but could provoke an uproar in Congress.

Bush resisted such a move for years, insisting that Russia first stop building a nuclear power station for Iran near the Persian Gulf. But U.S. officials have shifted their view of Russia's collaboration with Iran and concluded that President Vladimir Putin has become a more constructive partner in trying to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations for nuclear weapons.

The president plans to announce his decision at a meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg next Saturday before the annual summit of leaders from the Group of Eight major industrialized nations, officials said. The statement to be released by the two presidents would agree to start negotiations for the formal agreement required under U.S. law before the United States can engage in civilian nuclear cooperation.

In the administration's view, both sides would benefit. A nuclear cooperation agreement would clear the way for Russia to import and store thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors around the world, a lucrative business so far blocked by Washington. It could be used as an incentive to win more Russian cooperation on Iran. And it would be critical to Bush's plan to spread civilian nuclear energy to power-hungry countries because Russia would provide a place to send the used radioactive material.

At the same time, it could draw significant opposition from across the ideological spectrum, according to analysts who follow the issue. Critics wary of Putin's authoritarian course view it as rewarding Russia even though Moscow refuses to support sanctions against Iran. Others fearful of Russia's record of handling nuclear material see it as a reckless move that endangers the environment.

You will have all the anti-Russian right against it, you will have all the anti-nuclear left against it, and you will have the Russian democracy center concerned about it too, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Since Russia is already a nuclear state, such an agreement, once drafted, presumably would conform to the Atomic Energy Act and therefore would not require congressional approval. Congress could reject it only with majority votes by both houses within 90 legislative days.

Administration officials confirmed the president's decision yesterday only after it was first learned from outside nuclear experts privy to the situation. The officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the agreement before the summit.

The prospect, however, has been hinted at during public speeches in recent days. We certainly will be talking about nuclear energy, Assistant Energy Secretary Karen A. Harbert told a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace event Thursday. We need alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Some specialists said Bush's decision marks a milestone in U.S.-Russian relations, despite tension over Moscow's retreat from democracy and pressure on neighbors. It signals that there's a sea change in the attitude toward Russia, that they're someone we can try to work with on Iran, said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Energy Department official in the Clinton administration who now directs the Carnegie Moscow Center. It bespeaks a certain level of confidence in the Russians by this administration that hasn't been there before.

But others said the deal seems one-sided. Just what exactly are we getting? That's the real mystery, said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. Until now, he noted, the United States has insisted on specific actions by Russia to prevent Iran from developing bombs. We're not getting any of that. We're getting an opportunity to give them money.

Environmentalists have denounced Russia's plans to transform itself into the world's nuclear dump. The country has a history of nuclear accidents and contamination. Its transportation network is antiquated and inadequate for moving vast quantities of radioactive material, critics say. And the country, they add, has not fully secured the nuclear facilities it already has against theft or accidents.

The United States has civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with the European atomic energy agency, along with China, Japan, Taiwan and 20 other countries. Bush recently sealed an agreement with India, which does require congressional approval because of that nation's unsanctioned weapons program.

Russia has sought such an agreement with the United States since the 1990s, when it began thinking about using its vast land mass to store much of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Estimating that it could make as much as $20 billion, Russia enacted a law in 2001 permitting the import, temporary storage and reprocessing of foreign nuclear fuel, despite 90 percent opposition in public opinion polls.

But the plan went nowhere. The United States controls spent fuel from nuclear material it provides, even in foreign countries, and Bunn estimates that as much as 95 percent of the potential world market for Russia was under U.S. jurisdiction. Without a cooperation agreement, none of the material could be sent to Russia, even though allies such as South Korea and Taiwan are eager to ship spent fuel there.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush refused to consider it as long as Russia was helping Iran with its nuclear program. In the summer of 2002, according to Bunn, Bush sent Putin a letter saying an agreement could be reached only if the central problem of assistance to Iran's missile, nuclear and advanced conventional weapons programs was solved.

The concern over the nuclear reactor under construction at Bushehr, however, has faded. Russia agreed to provide all fuel to the facility and take it back once used, meaning it could not be turned into material for nuclear bombs. U.S. officials who once suspected that Russian scientists were secretly behind Iran's weapons program learned that critical assistance to Tehran came from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

The 2002 disclosure that Iran had secret nuclear sites separate from Bushehr shocked both the U.S. and Russian governments and seemed to harden Putin's stance toward Iran. He eventually agreed to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council and signed on to a package of incentives and penalties recently sent to Tehran. At the same time, he has consistently opposed economic sanctions, military action or even tougher diplomatic language by the council, much to the frustration of U.S. officials.

Opening negotiations for a formal nuclear cooperation agreement could be used as a lever to move Putin further. Talks will inevitably take months, and the review in Congress will extend the process. If during that time Putin resists stronger measures against Iran, analysts said, the deal could unravel or critics on Capitol Hill could try to muster enough opposition to block it. If Putin proves cooperative on Iran, they said, it could ease the way toward final approval.

This was one of the few areas where there was big money involved that you could hold over the Russians, said George Perkovich, an arms-control specialist and vice president of the Carnegie Endowment. It's a handy stick, a handy thing to hold over the Russians.

Bush has an interest in taking the agreement all the way as well. His new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions promoting civilian nuclear power around the world and eventually finding a way to reprocess spent fuel without the danger of leaving behind material that could be used for bombs. Until such technology is developed, Bush needs someplace to store the spent fuel from overseas, and Russia is the only volunteer.

The Russians could make a lot of money importing foreign spent fuel, some of our allies would desperately like to be able to send their fuel to Russia, and maybe we could use the leverage to get other things done, such as getting the Russians to be more forward-leaning on Iran, Bunn said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html?sub=new

Iran warns US.

http://www.startribune.com/world/33937339.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Israel concerned about ties with new US administration.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=060dd72c-c876-4e0d-b39f-c835c26b256c

And we have to worry about our own economy.  Afraid to find out what is next.

I do not mean to sound churchy, but I have been brought up that it states in the Bible that Russia (known as another name in Bible, but shows it on a map where Russia is) to be very worried.  When the country Russia comes into play, need to worry about Amargeddon, The End Times.  Not the countries of Iran, North Korea, etc., but Russia.   Yes, I am concerned about Russia.

We never believe a word they say unless it somehow coincides with our own opinions, huh?

I pity you.

Nice cut and paste job.

You are not witty.

These are not your own words.

I feel really sorry for you.

I will pray for you.

You are so funny - NOT.

You are a (republican/democrat) clone.

You take your talking points right from the (democrat/republican) party play book.

You're a dope because you watch Fox.

You're a jerk because you watch MSNBC.

Beck and Limbaugh are gods.

Olbermann and Matthews are gods.

Yeah, well BUSH....Yeah, well CLINTON [these guys are not president anymore.]

military manuevers near Venezuela.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457106,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457550,00.html

Because of our economy, United States will be split:  The Pacific area, The South, Atlantic area, etc.  As for Alaska?  Could be Russia's for the taking. 

What is amazing to me about Alaska is Palin.  Palin was not to be our next VP, but it sure shows Russia who she is and how she tries to fight for Alaska.  Of all states, Alaska came out of no where during the election and shows what Alaska has to offer including Palin who will fight for her state against Russia.   

meaning the recent Putin reelection.....the *dirtiest* in their history.....

http://newsfromrussia.com/news/russia/03-12-2007/102126-kasparov_elections-0

The DNC should dismiss H Clinton IMMEDIATELY due to her offensive and despicable comments about why she is staying in the race (the assasination of Bobby Kennedy - in other words the same could happen to Barack and so she should stay in in case that happens).  I think it is a disgrace for her to continue in the race at this point.  There is no doubt in my mind (and others I have talked with) that she wants something dreadful to happen to Barack, but to blatently come out and mention the assination of Bobby Kennedy when referring to Barack Obama is the lowest of all time lows.  Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE should call for her removal from the race.  This is why we CANNOT have her as VP.  If so Barack would have to constantly be looking over her shoulder.  If nobody believes that they need to read the history of the Clintons and what they have done to people in the past.  It's fact and people need to wake up!  This is not some "right-winged" thing against her - it happened and you can read about it.

Then she tries to cover up her shameful statements with lies.  The media is treating her too kindly by saying they are sure she didn't mean that she believes something would happen to him.  I just want to scream - Don't you believe it.  Look at the past!  Yet once again another reason I'm not voting for her. 

And what part of NO doesn't the Hillary supporters understand that she is NOT going to be VP on his ticket.  NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!  If, and I doubt that would happen, but if she was to be on the ticket I would not vote for him.  I will write in Ron Paul. 

She goes on and on about all the people she has that will vote for McCain and not Obama if she doesn't get on the ticket - yeah, well there are an equal number that if she is on the ticket will absolutely not vote for her and will either go for McCain or just not vote.  I was watching the exit polls after the election on Tuesday and they said that its about a 50/50 split with Hillary supporters and Barack supporters saying they will not vote for the other.  

There's no way in the world I want that XXXXX anywhere near the white house.  I am just outraged that she made such a dispicable, appalling, shameful and vile statement.  And I don't even want to hear any Hillary lovers try and defend this.  If there is a meaning of evil she fits the description to a T.  This just confirms she is XXXXX in my books.

Here is the sound bite from Barbara Bush (it actually was on The Drudge Report!)

Here's the clip. Let them try and spin it however they want. Her callous words cannot be denied. These are heartless group of elitists:
http://www.drudgereport.com/bb.mp3

I'm glad we didn't have any whiners in our political science class in high school.  Our teacher was one that provoked thought, and this was during Clinton's presidency.   I think that's the whole point as unless you are a Bush loyalist who thinks any comment not praising him is against the law. 

Teacher Probed Over Bush Remarks

Overland High School students demonstrate March 2, 2006, in Aurora, Colo., to protest the school district's decision to put geography teacher Jay Bennish on administrative leave. (AP Photo/Aurora Daily Sun) Fast Fact A student recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1st discussion about President Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal.

 • AP photographer: Gunmen fire on Iran protesters, killing one

I hope the link works!  If not,  sorry!

Looks like they're breaking out the tear gas and water cannons, along with the bullets.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/20/iran.election/index.html

I

More News • Anglo American Says Xstrata Presents `Very Preliminary' Takeover Approach • Drugmakers Offer $80 Billion to Cut Medicare Costs in U.S. Health Overhaul • Spending, Home Sales in U.S. Probably Rose as Consumers Gained Confidence Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained Share | Email | Print | A A A

More News • Anglo American Says Xstrata Presents `Very Preliminary' Takeover Approach • Drugmakers Offer $80 Billion to Cut Medicare Costs in U.S. Health Overhaul • Spending, Home Sales in U.S. Probably Rose as Consumers Gained Confidence Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained Share | Email | Print | A A A

More News • Anglo American Says Xstrata Presents `Very Preliminary' Takeover Approach • Drugmakers Offer $80 Billion to Cut Medicare Costs in U.S. Health Overhaul • Spending, Home Sales in U.S. Probably Rose as Consumers Gained Confidence Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained Share | Email | Print | A A A

More News • Anglo American Says Xstrata Presents `Very Preliminary' Takeover Approach • Drugmakers Offer $80 Billion to Cut Medicare Costs in U.S. Health Overhaul • Spending, Home Sales in U.S. Probably Rose as Consumers Gained Confidence Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained Share | Email | Print | A A A

"  Rafsanjani, one of the most influential politicians in Iran, supports opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that June 12 elections were rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That puts him in conflict with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has approved of the electoral win. "

More News • Anglo American Says Xstrata Presents `Very Preliminary' Takeover Approach • Drugmakers Offer $80 Billion to Cut Medicare Costs in U.S. Health Overhaul • Spending, Home Sales in U.S. Probably Rose as Consumers Gained Confidence Ten Killed in Iranian Protests, Rafsanjani Relatives Detained Share | Email | Print | A A A

" In Washington, President Barack Obama urged an end to the crackdown. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people,” he said in an e-mailed statement. "

Till now the verbal support of Obama suffice to give the protesters enough moral support to continue with their just protests.  Khatami is detaining his own people and their relatives!

LMAO.