It was about what I expected. He said the same old crap, and for some reason the Kerry campaign/Nevada State Democratic Party think that the "No Yucca Mountain" is the silver bullet for Nevada. Well, I'll tell you something, it's not. People have been hearing about Yucca Mountain for 30 years now. Everyone out here has a vague uneasiness about Yucca Mountain. Noone wants nuclear waste out here. A certain number of people care desperately about this issue, but not that many. All those people are going to vote Kerry or Nader or whoever the guy who's running for the Green Party. Oh, and this is from today's RJ:
"But nuclear industry backers and other officials scoffed at his strategy, saying
it could backfire on him and that he was playing the issue for votes."
By the way, I like the idea of Yucca Mountain. I would rather have all of this country's nuclear waste stashed in the most highly guarded and best protected place in the entire United States, rather than spread out at hundreds of under-protected facilities across the country. You gotta put this shit some where. The only thing to worry about is the transportation of the nuclear materials. Once it gets here, it doesn't matter. The spooge is going to be buried in the middle of a mountain. If you are worried about terrorists getting to it, you should also be worrying about terrorists going to Area-51, stealing an alien spacecraft, and using it to attack Las Vegas. It's just not going to happen. These areas are some of the highest security places in the world. It's seriously a lot better to have a few thousand pounds of nuclear waste stashed here, rather than a few hundred pounds in Bridgeport Connecticut, Dover Delaware, Seattle, Kansas City, and wherever the hell else this goop might be.
Now, I would have liked to have heard some sort of mention on the financial-center terror alerts in the northeast, and all of the scary news going on out here in Las Vegas this past week. Major surveillance for potential terror attacks, and did Oscar Goodman know, and was there a cover-up because of potential tourism losses? And how about this by Kristoff in NYTimes today?
William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even
chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade - that is, in the next six
years. "We're racing toward unprecedented catastrophe," Mr. Perry warns.
"This is preventable, but we're not doing the things that could prevent
it."
That is what I find baffling: an utter failure of the political process.
The Bush administration responded aggressively on military fronts after 9/11,
and in November 2003, Mr. Bush observed, "The greatest threat of our age is
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the
dictators who aid them." But the White House has insisted on tackling the most
peripheral elements of the W.M.D. threat, like Iraq, while largely ignoring the
central threat, nuclear proliferation. The upshot is that the risk that a
nuclear explosion will devastate an American city is greater now than it was
during the cold war, and it's growing.
In my next column, I'll explain how we
can reduce the risk of an American Hiroshima.
Yeah, and what about this on Juan Cole? What the hell is Moqtada al Sadr up to? What about Prime Minister Allawi? Is there really a conspiracy to kill Ahmed Chalabi and his nephew Salim? How bad is he, and how much of it is Allawi attempting to consolidate power?
John Kerry has not impressed me that he is taking the threat of terrorism seriously. And what the hell is his plan other than to "Internationalize Iraq"? I don't care if France and Germany start a draft to send over half a million troops to help a Kerry presidency. What does he do with the troops? The lack of troop strength is a huge problem, but more importantly, what the fuck are we trying to accomplish there? Seriously, what are we doing? And how would a Kerry administration differ in it's handling of the war? So far, other than promising to "reach out" to other countries, he is minimizing any differences between himself and the president on Iraq. The main thing that Kerry says is that he supported the war, still would have voted the same way, but he would have done things the "right" way. Great. Thanks for taking our country's future so seriously Mr. Kerry and the Democratic Party.
Oh by the way, the rank and file Dems are the worst. You know what line got the biggest applause? "I won't privatize social security"? "National service = free college"? "The government is going to take over insuring catastrophic cases, ie. cancer, MS, AIDS, etc"? No, of course not. "I'm John Kerry and I served in Vietnam"(or some loose approximation of that.) What the fuck man. Stupid Democrats. The Weekly Standard and National Review are right. The Democrats and John Kerry truly are the September 10th party. They should get rid of the donkey mascot and go for an ostrich (you know, heads in the sand? duh.)
No comments:
Post a Comment