It's a bad idea, unless it's ours

(Keep this article in mind, the next time someone repeats the old, false meme that Democrats have no ideas, no plan for the nation)

In the September 30, 2004 first Presidential debate, candidate John Kerry suggested a plan under which the U.S. would provide Iran with nuclear fuel for nuclear reactors, along with controls such that we had access to monitor the use of the fuel rods and ensure they were truly being used for energy production and not weapons. The spend fuel would presumably be accounted for and returned to us.

At the time, this was widely criticized in Republican circles as stupid, handing a loaded weapon to a dangerous nation (as though Kerry were advocating handing the Uranium over with no controls or strings attached). It was called "ignorant" and "dangerously wrong". One Bush ally wrote an op-ed piece in which he said "Mr. Bush understands the folly of going that route."

One enthusiastically pro-Bush site, littlegreenfootballs.com, had the following quotes about the Kerry plan on August 2 of 2004:

John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration’s. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: “Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.” Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

...and...

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

(Link here if you think this was in any way SUPPORTIVE of the Kerry plan.)

As recently as Jan. 22 of this year, NewsMax.com (a highly conservative web site) was still talking (here) about how stupid this was.

Which is odd, because four days later, President Bush endorsed a plan that is almost exactly the plan he and his party have been sneering at since Kerry suggested it. Quoted from an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Bush said:

"I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear power program under these conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IAEA inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia," Mr. Bush said at a news conference yesterday. "I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea and I support it," he added.

So, apparently the plan is dangerous and ill conceived when it's time to paint Democrats with the "no good ideas" brush, but excellent when Bush decides to endorse it.

And they say Democrats are flip-floppy.

Liam.