September 24, 2003


Bush's Dangerous Nuclear Double Standard: With the White House pushing for new types of warheads, other nations may not heed the call for nonproliferation. (Edward M. Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein, September 23, 2003, LA Times)

President Bush is expected to go to the United Nations today and, with Iran and North Korea obviously in mind, make a strong plea for nuclear nonproliferation.

Okay, we'll give you that much--now guess who the nation is that we aren't treating the same way we do North Korea and Iran? We'll send a book to the first person who gets it right without looking. (You're all on your sacred honour here.)

CONGRATULATIUONS: to andrew who got the--typical for Ted Kennedy but appalling from Senator Feinstein--answer first.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 24, 2003 8:26 PM

I guess Israel. I didn't look.

Posted by: jd watson at September 24, 2003 9:00 PM

I guess the UK. I didn't look.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 24, 2003 9:01 PM

I guess -- and it's only a guess, since I'm not entirely sure wbat the parameters are here -- is France.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 24, 2003 9:21 PM


Posted by: andrew at September 24, 2003 9:22 PM

not india...USA

Posted by: andrew at September 24, 2003 9:25 PM


Posted by: oj at September 24, 2003 9:28 PM


Posted by: andrew at September 24, 2003 9:29 PM

What were you doing for those three minutes?

Posted by: oj at September 24, 2003 9:33 PM

I was reading comments at LGF. It occurred to me after my first post that ted and diane must be talking about the USA...we can make new, different nukes but Syria and Iran Can't Ted and Diane seem to think that Syria and Iran are our moral equals.

Posted by: andrew at September 24, 2003 9:39 PM

Very good! E-mail me at with your address and I'll send you a copy of Rick Atkinson's Army at Dawn.

Posted by: oj at September 24, 2003 10:03 PM

It is, by the way, America, for those of you who don't care to register at the LA Times:

"But the president's words may ring hollow to much of the world because here at home we're embarking on a new and dangerous plan to develop and build a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The circumstances are hardly auspicious at a moment when our credibility in the world community is tenuous.

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest challenges facing the U.S. and the world community today. The Bush administration says it strongly supports that goal.

Yet, in a bill awaiting final action in Congress, the administration is asking for $21 million in appropriations for two new types of nuclear weapons, the so-called mini-nukes and what it calls a "robust nuclear earth penetrator," the so-called bunker-buster."

So, indeed, the Senators are comparing our own nuclear program to that of Kim Jong-Il.

Posted by: oj at September 24, 2003 10:21 PM

When the Soviet Union was developing and testing such weapons, the liberals advocated unilateral disarmament in order not to provoke the Soviets into an "arms race."

Now, there's no Soviet Union and the liberals have reconfigured their lame arguments.

It's really too bad that Edward Teller did not live to see the deployment/use of enhanced radiation/reduced blast nuclear weapons, since he was a major proponent over the years.

Posted by: kevin whited at September 24, 2003 10:41 PM

Late entry: As no one has yet mentioned Pakistan, I thought I'd give a plug for one of our favorite countries.

( Cf. Christopher Hitchens on the subject: )

Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 25, 2003 2:13 AM

Subtle thought and the ability to make distinctions has never been a Teddy strong point. Since he is a leading left-wing Democrat as is Ms. Feinstein, why would her joining TK surprise you? We're not talking rocket scientist here.

Out of curiosity, what the heck is his hold on you people up there anyway?

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at September 25, 2003 2:25 PM

Dianne Feinstein used to seem fairly normal, though her failure to even look at the House impeachment materials effectively ended her honeymoon with conservatives.

Don't spread the blame too wide where Ted Kennedy is concerned. He couldn't get elected burnt offering up here.

Posted by: oj at September 25, 2003 2:32 PM

I can't explain it either, but he's senator for life and when they finally drag his dead body down the capital steps, the people of the Commonwealth will elect anyone else named Kennedy to the seat. I assume that, because he has zero danger of losing his seat, his role in the Party is to set out the most extreme positions that incumbents with in any remote danger at all don't feel comfortable saying.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 25, 2003 3:18 PM

We can get TWO new nuclear weapons for $21 million?

I take back everything I said about deflation.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 25, 2003 3:35 PM

David Cohen,

Would the folks of the Commonwealth elect an Arnold Kennedy, by any chance?? Nah, I didn't think so.

Posted by: John J. Coupal at September 25, 2003 6:32 PM

John -

In 1958, JFK was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts. That same year, another John F. Kennedy was elected state Treasurer. The voters figured if Kennedy wanted two jobs, they'd give it to him.

I wouldn't bet against Arnold Kennedy, or even against Mohammed bin Laden Kennedy.

Posted by: David Cohen at September 26, 2003 8:20 AM