Kennedy: America at Risk of Nuke Attack

[GreenPartyVoter]

WASHINGTON (AP) - America is at greater risk of a nuclear attack from terrorists because of the Bush administration's "single-minded focus on Iraq," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said.

In remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday, Kennedy, D-Mass., said North Korea and Iran have continued unchecked with their nuclear buildups while the United States preoccupies itself with Iraq.

"Instead of leading the world against the real threat of Iran's nuclear program, the president chose to lead America alone into the quicksand to counter the mirage of a threat in Iraq," Kennedy said in the remarks, prepared for a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He said the administration's efforts to rid Iraq of a nuclear program it didn't have not only has destroyed U.S. credibility around the world, but has made al-Qaida terrorists more determined to launch a nuclear attack on America.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20040622/D83BR0100.html

[Vickers]

1. Yup, and it'll be a nuclear attack no Star Wars SDI defense crap will stop

What a mess that jackass has gotten all of us (I'm talking the whole earth) in to.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Yep. Star Wars is a very expensive "security" blanky for

the American people.

[MallRat]

4. Star Wars doesn't stop nucular bombs in suitcases.

If Bush doesn't understand this, he's an idiot.

If Bush does understand this, then SDI is nothing more than a pork barrel smorgasbord for his friends in the defense industry.

I don't know which of these scenarios makes me feel worse.

-MR

[ladjf]

3. The they chose to, terrorists could successfully hit the U.S.

almost anywhere on any day.

Kennedy is correct about the nuclear threat and it's not just from Iran or Korea.

Bush is doing everything in his power to provoke others into attacking the U.S. and nothing to prevent any REAL threat. I mean by REAL: a hit that would kill hundreds of thousands at once.

[ArkDem]

5. I just wonder why they aren't making the attacks.

[ladjf]

6. I ponder that question myself and have no answers.

I can only speculate that the perception of gain vs. the loss doesn't add up to a go.

Regarding possible nuclear attacks: Most likely, the logistics and costs would have to be borne by a country, rather than a mobile organization. The processes of weapon acquisition, transporting and attack delivery would be substantial.

At this point in time, I can only conclude that there is no country that has the wherewithal to make the attack who believes it would be worth the risk. Individuals are suicidal but not countries.

But, if BushCo continues there insane operations a time could come when some serious and capable State organizations might deem it necessary to stop them.

Regarding 9-11: Who profited from those deeds? Who lost?