looking for Bush Admin/PNAC etc. quotes on using nukes

[G_j]

for a LTTE I am thinking about. Kerry statements on the same would be helpful also.

I am trying to address another aspect of how Bush does not equal a safer world.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Sure, here you go.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030213-3.html

Today the gravest danger in the war on terror -- the gravest danger facing America and the world -- is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies who would use them without the least bit of hesitation. That's the reality of the world we live in, and that's what we're going to use every ounce of our power to defeat.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

First of all, we've got all options on the table, because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us, or our allies or friends.

Well, first of all, I view our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, as a way to say to people that would harm America, don't do it. That's a deterrent, that there's a consequence. And the President must have all options available to make that deterrent have meaning. That's how I view the review.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011019-4.html

We will use whatever means are necessary to achieve our objective.

[G_j]

2. that is a great help

the wheels are turning...

much thanks!

[G_j]

3. kick

[G_j]

4. kick

[AntiFascist]

5. Appropriations Hearing on Funding of Next Generation of Nuclear Weapons

Please read carefully!
This is a statement from Sen. Feinstein, dated March 23, 2004:

Washington, DC -- The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water today held a hearing on the budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is engaged in research into a new generation of nuclear weapons. The following is the prepared text of Senator Feinstein’s statement:

“Preventing the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the means to deliver them should be a top priority for American’s national security policy. But for much of the past three years, the Administration's policy on nuclear weapons has:

· Engaged in unnecessarily belligerent unilateralist rhetoric and action;

· Dismissed arms control and nonproliferation as ineffective;

· Emphasized the role of pre emptive military action; and,

· Pursued new nuclear weapon capabilities.

I believe that if the United States is ultimately to be successful in our efforts to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists we must reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our own thinking as a core element of our non-proliferation strategy.

For the U.S. to be increasing funding for the research and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons in its own arsenal even as we are telling others that they should not pursue these weapons themselves may well provoke the very proliferation we seek to prevent.

And well there is no question that in the post-9/11 era a full range of policy options for dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table I am gravely concerned that this Administration's efforts to reopen the door to develop and deploy a new generation of nuclear weapons may make the United States less safe and secure, not more.

Now, when we discussed these issues in the context of last year’s budget request, representatives of the Administration, including both the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy, assured the Senate that the research proposed on new nuclear weapons was just that, research and studies.

Well, in both politics and government if you really want to know what is going on often the best thing to do is simply to ‘follow the money.’

And if there is any question about the Administration's true intent the budget requests before the Congress this year makes it perfectly clear that despite last years protestations of innocence there are those in this Administration who are deadly serious about the development and deployment of a new generation of nuclear weapons. This year’s budget request includes:

· $27.5 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator;

· $9 million for Advanced Concepts Initiative, which includes so-called ‘low yield’ weapons; and,

· $30 million for the Modern Pit Facility, a plant to make up to 450 new ‘pits’, which trigger nuclear weapons, per year. You don't need that much production unless you are going back into the nuclear business in a serious way.

And this year’s request is just the tip of the iceberg. The Congressional Research Service now reports that the Administration's own long-term budget plans, which includes $485 million for the RNEP between 2005 and 2009, ‘cast doubt’ on the contention that the study of new nuclear weapons are, in fact, only a study.
And to my mind the ramp-up in funding represented by the Administration’s request can mean one thing and one thing only: That the Administration is determined to develop and field a new generation of nuclear weapons.

I strongly support a robust military to safeguard America's National Security interests. But by seeking to develop new nuclear weapons -- and, as indicated in the Nuclear Posture Review, a new doctrine that considers nuclear weapons in the same category as conventional weapons -- the United States sends a message that nuclear weapons have a future battlefield role and utility. By doing so, I believe we will make our nation and our allies less secure - not more - if the United States opens the door to the development, testing, and deployment of new nuclear weapons.”

[G_j]

6. excellent

thank you! :-)

[G_j]

7. kick

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

8. Not on nukes per se,

but here's one from Richard Perle:

"If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

[G_j]

9. well that fits right in

I want to make the case that a nuclear exchange becomes a distinct danger under the Bush admin. policies.

thanks, that is a keeper