Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' Is Possible

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' Is Possible
Email this Story

Mar 28, 1:40 PM (ET)

By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said the United States needs to do more to prevent a "nuclear 9-11," a threat that he argues has been neglected because the Bush administration has been consumed with Iraq.

The New Mexico governor said the United States must lead an effort to secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands. "If al-Qaida obtained nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate to use them with the same ruthlessness that allowed them to fly airplanes filled with people into buildings," he said in a speech to the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

"It took a Manhattan project to create the bomb," Richardson said. "We need a new Manhattan project to stop the bomb - a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide."


Democratic Presidential hopeful New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is applauded at the Building and Construction Trades Department AFL-CIO's candidate forum, Wednesday, March 28, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

Asked why he doesn't support a nuclear-free world like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other Cold War leaders have promoted, Richardson replied, "I'm a pragmatist."

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070328/D8O5AHH00.html

[Warren DeMontague]

1. He's right.

Unfortunately, this Administration has been asleep at the switch.

[sasha031]

2. wait for the Easter Suprise

[Singular73]

3. Heh, if Bush or Cheney gave this speech

We would be accusing them of fear-mongering.

[soulcore]

4. Yes we would.

It's all an artificial threat, how long until they realize we are fighting the shadow of our own intelligence services?

[Jester_11218]

6. Bingo

You are correct! There is no way a individual can get hold of a nuke. No way. The only entities that can create nuclear weapons are governments and the only way one can get a hold of a nuke is with the cooperation of a government. Period. End of story.

[MGD]

10. A Govt. such as Iran or North Korea perhaps?

I'm just sayin'...

[Stand and Fight]

5. My thought exactly....

Let's be straight-forward here people. Call a spade a spade. This sounds like good ol' fashioned fear-mongering to me through and through.

[Theduckno2]

7. I am more concerned that the Cubs will take 4 straight over the White Sox in the World Series

I am exaggerating.

But still.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists? Remember that video of Zarqawi(spelling?) needing help to clear his weapon and try to imagine him attempting to construct a nuclear weapon.

Control of radioactive materials (dirty bomb) is important as well as nuclear non-proliferation in state sponsored programs, but this seems to be the same old fear-mongering to me too.

Maybe he is watching too much "24".

[JNelson6563]

11. It was my thought

even though it's not from Bush or Cheney. I'm tired of fear mongering. The only thing missing was "mushroom cloud". No thanks.

Julie

[spoony]

12. Great point

Bill has made a career out of nuclear fear-mongering and needs a new tune.

[bklyncowgirl]

13. How is saying that Bush hasn't done enough to secure nuclear weapons fear mongering?

Having read the whole article, it seems that Richardson is saying that despite all of it's "terror, terror, terror" rhetoric, the Bush administration has done precious little to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of the hands of terrorist organizations and that as president this would be a major priority for him.

Unless you really believe that Al Queda, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations are a wholly owned proprietory of the CIA, it makes sense to encourage and enable other countries to keep these weapons and materials under strict control.

Yes, the chances of this happening are remote but the Bush administration has made this horrific scenario more likely.

[w4rma]

8. An anti-Manhattan project sounds like a good idea.

But I hope he isn't thinking about expanding the Patriot Acts I and II instead of repealing them.

[superconnected]

9. There's no chance I'd vote for him. I got sick of those tactics with the chimp.

[gorbal]

14. He seems the smartest of the candidates.

I'm not sure if I agree with him, but he seems to me to be the smartest and most experienced of the cadidates, and he balanced New Mexico's budget while the rest of the US was going south.

I love this Wild West add from 2006-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0juSJ-y9xg&NR

Giving money to movie production really helped him out.

[screembloodymurder]

15. The problem is the distribution of wealth.

It's only possible because a few individuals can acquire the power to act alone.

[Javaman]

16. See that's what separates Richardson from the rest of the field of

near-do-wells, he's thinking outside the box.

While all the other candidates are worried about Iraq and how that is killing our economy and our standing in the world, Mr. Richardson is pulling an old trick out of his hat...FEAR!!! FEAR!!!

Yes, we haven't had a healthy dose of fear in quite sometime and lets face it, no one wants to hear about that downer of a war in Iraq anymore, that just doesn't get the donations in.

Got to get the public shitting in their pants again over more bullshit!!! Yay!!!

Sigh. I thought richardson was better than this but it appears as if he's looking to retread a failed policy as a pillar to his platform.

Here we go again, is this going to be a redesigned campaign slogan for the remaining 18 months? a nuclear 9/11, christ I hope not.

If it becomes the new rallying cry for the various candidates, you can count me out of this next election. because for the thinking members out there it will be nothing more than a marketing sham.

I get so tired living in an alternative universe.

[seasat]

17. Disagree, another terrorist attack could swing voters to Repugs.

Al Queda and associates love neocon hawks like McCain or Guiliani. They are their best recruiters. All they'd have to do is pull a minor terrorist act in our country and the voters would jump at those two GOP candidates. Even a credible threat and the voters might swing towards the Repugs.

If we, as Democrats are already addressing homeland security and global terrorism, we'll be in a better position. Richardson, during his time as Energy Secretary, made this nuclear proliferation and security a priority. Just like his support for gay rights, he's consistent.

If you read his speech and the follow the details of his plan, he's proposing reductions in our nuclear arsenal and pulling the US and Russia off a hair trigger with each other. Whether you agree there is a potential for a threat from a dirty bomb or crude nuclear weapon, reduction of our nuclear weapons is a good thing. He's also addressing proliferation from unstable governments. He mentions the need to provide security for nuclear weapons if Mushareff of Pakistan is overthrown in a coup by a group of radicals. Richardson is also highly critical of Shrub Inc for puling their focus off terrorism issues by engaging in the Iraq war.

His plan is not a "Boo! There are terrorists around the corner" but, IMHO, a common sense approach to nuclear proliferation.

[AnOhioan]

18. I see I am not the only one who read this article.....

and thought that Richardson was being a tad bit melodramatic. I expect better from our candidates, unfortunately I have been disappointed.

[yurbud]

19. since you can't 100% prevent this without losing all our rights, why not reduce reasons people are

mad at us?

Stop using our military and economic policy to thwart democracy and act as hired muscle for sweatshop and plantation owners, and oil companies.

[IndyBob]

20. Securing nuclear materials does not

seem like fear monger to me, but common sense. This is different than *ush exploiting 911 to become the war president, avenge his daddy, and line his buddy's pockets with the invasion in Iraq.