March 3, 2006
FAILURE TO MEET OUR STANDARD DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE TWO:
Bush Likely to Face Opposition on Atomic Deal With India (STEVEN R. WEISMAN, 3/03/06, NY Times)
Critics of the deal in Congress and abroad are certain to focus on what they maintain is a double standard embraced by the Bush administration: in effect, allowing India to have nuclear weapons and still get international assistance but insisting that Iran, North Korea and other "rogue states" be given no such waiver.But administration officials insisted there was no double standard.
"The comparison between India and Iran is just ludicrous," R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said Thursday in a telephone interview. "India is a highly democratic, peaceful, stable state that has not proliferated nuclear weapons. Iran is an autocratic state mistrusted by nearly all countries and that has violated its international commitments."
With fairly minimal reforms Iran can meet the same standard. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 3, 2006 7:55 AM
These critics must be dumb as dirt. I would hope the American people can tell the difference between India and Iran when it comes to foreign relations.
Posted by: AWW at March 3, 2006 8:07 AMYes, one of those countries is not like the other two.
Posted by: Rick T. at March 3, 2006 8:48 AM"Fairly minimal reforms"?
Does that include killing about 5000 mullahs, lackeys, thugs, assassins, butchers, torturers, and the like?
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 3, 2006 9:30 AMjim:
No, just having the Guardian Council yield its legislative power and candidate screening.
Posted by: oj at March 3, 2006 12:09 PMIt says something (about whom, I don't know) that when I read "...DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE TWO," I immediately thought, "Great, another Julia/Eric Roberts post..."
Posted by: Just John at March 3, 2006 2:36 PM