Monday, August 02, 2004

Why spend money on international weapons inspections...

... we'll just continue to pretend that the countries we WANT to invade have WMDs, and turn a blind eye to the countries we DON'T want to invade! From the Washington Post:

In a significant shift in U.S. policy, the Bush administration announced this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

For several years the United States and other nations have pursued the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. At an arms-control meeting this week in Geneva, the Bush administration told other nations it still supported a treaty, but not verification.

Administration officials, who have showed skepticism in the past about the effectiveness of international weapons inspections, said they made the decision after concluding that such a system would cost too much, would require overly intrusive inspections and would not guarantee compliance with the treaty. They declined, however, to explain in detail how they believed U.S. security would be harmed by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.

Arms-control specialists reacted negatively, saying the change in U.S. position will dramatically weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. The announcement, they said, also virtually kills a 10-year international effort to lure countries such as Pakistan, India and Israel into accepting some oversight of their nuclear production programs.

(emphasis added)

I'm speechless. Absolutely speechless. (Thanks to the Washington Monthly for the pointer.)

Sunday, August 01, 2004

"Not until you sign your loyalty oath"

... That's what Bush-Cheney campaign workers told people (who happened to be Democrats) who wanted to see Dick Cheney speak in New Mexico on Saturday:

Two men who had sought tickets reported they were required to give name, address, phone number, e-mail address and driver's license number, then were presented the pledge of endorsement when they arrived to pick up the tickets Thursday.

One of them, John Wade of Albuquerque, said he signed the pledge because he wanted the tickets but then changed his mind.

"I got to thinking this is not right," Wade said. "They're excluding people -- that's what has me so upset."

He returned the tickets and campaign workers returned his pledge.Vietnam veteran Michael Ortiz y Pino said he refused to sign the pledge and was refused tickets.

Ortiz y Pino said he was asked if he associated with veterans, pro-life, gun rights or teacher groups.

Neither man wanted to give driver's license numbers but did so.

"I said why do you need that?" Ortiz y Pino said.

A campaign worker, he said, replied: "Secret Service stuff."

Yeah, Secret Service stuff. Rest of the AP story here.