I appreciate the discussion as well. What I haven't liked about some of the other posts is that they focus on personal animus without regard to specifics.

As to the nukes, specificity is needed. Your original post refers to the conversion of weapons grade uranium to that used for energy production. Russia already has the bomb, so we aren't talking about giving them new technology. We are just funding known technology to facilitate conversion which, I believe, is in our national interest. Hopefully, once the conversion work is finished, we can offer some of these scientists work in the West.

In principle, the idea of a consensus-builder sounds appealing. However, in modern politics, there is great pressure by both parties on individual members to conform and only the most courageous will defy party leadership. This is all the more true for Republicans when the Democrat making the proposal is Hillary Clinton.

I'm aware of the process.
"We need to spend the money to convert the nukes and keep the former Soviet scientists employed."

The bill doesn't mention converting "the nukes" unless you refer to "the nukes" as the reactors, perhaps a mistaken assumption on my part.

I'm not sure that lack of an employment program for Russian scientists is leaving our security in their hands. If anything, we could grant them amnesty and bring them to work in the US, building new reactors here to generate power and reduce our dependence on foreign supplies.

I have several colleagues that are Russian scientists whom I worked with for a period when I lived in D.C., they loved America, I'm sure we could get more of them over here.

The last nation we provided tribute to regarding nuclear reactors now has a nuclear weapon. The build up of that weapon was not a product of the 'failed foreign policy' of the Bush administration, it had been in the works far prior to that.

As for waiting until the "waters are right" on whether or not to introduce a bill, a consensus builder or true leader might have the skills to get that done.

I've enjoyed this discussion. You've brought a couple points to light I hadn't considered, hopefully I've done the same on your end.

Have a great weekend,
Chip

As to the bills, it isn't as simple as that. Before a bill can be voted, it has to pass the relevant committee. For instance, the nuke bill has to go through the energy committee. If the other side controls the committee, it can be very difficult to introduce legislation.

We need to spend the money to convert the nukes and keep the former Soviet scientists employed. If we don't, treaty or no treaty, the Russians aren't likely to. Do we really want to leave our security in their hands? Don't think so.

Thank you for well thought out comments. I agree that producing energy grade is better than weapons grade , but the fact is, we don't need to send the Russians money to do this.

Most likely the 200,000,000 (boy that's a lot of zeroes!) will not all go directly to the Russians, much may be spent providing employment for US experts to lend technical assistance (and that's a good thing). The fact of the matter is, the Russians have the skills to do this themselves and the other provisions of the bill should already be underway as part of counter-terrorism.

The Patriot Act reference I made Sec4(2) was a poor job of providing a reference on my part. I was highlighting the similarities of S.1705 sec 4(2) which contained goals which can only be accomplished with the "infringement" upon civil liberties many gripe abut with the Patriot Act.

As far as reducing the number of nukes Russia has, that falls under INF and other frameworks.

I'm not sure blaming not having a majority in Congress isn't reason to withold introduction of a bill. (Wait until you think it will pass) that's almost like NOT voting for the candidate you think is best so you can vote for who you think will be the winner.

I'm glad you are happy with her performance as Senator.

Thanks for some meaningful discussion, both of you.

Have a good weekend,

Chip
Have a good day,

I am a lifelong Republican. I voted against Bubba both times and voted for Dubya both times (to my regret). I worked for McCain in NY in 2000. I would still support him, but I don't think he has a chance of getting nominated. I will probably vote for Hillary and I believe she will be nominated and elected next year.

Dave of Oakland (we have so many Daves I think I need a scorecard!) makes a valid point. I think we can all agree that converting weapons grade nuclear material to energy grade is a good thing.

The more of it we convert the less there is that can fall into the hands of rogue nations and terrorists. Also, the more of their scientists employed in this work, the fewer left unemployed to be used by said rogue nations and terrorists.

The "bang for our buck" is not having the big bang go off in NY, LA, or Chicago. We spend little enough on foreign aid (about .1% GNP). We can surely afford this.

The section numbers you cited for the Patriot Act don't correspond with any I found. There are some measures amending previous laws concerning nuclear material, but the law she introduced is different. The Patriot Act is a HUGE bill. There are many provisions that everyone, including Senator Clinton, agrees on. There are others that are controversial.

I don't know what you mean when you talk about the tip of the iceberg. We've discussed the Russian nuke bill. The senator's record may be top heavy with measures that were introduced this year and haven't been passed yet because she was not in the majority until this year and it is easier to pass bills when you are in the majority. Again, speaking as a Republican who voted against her in 2000, I, along with the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers, approve of the job she has done as senator.

~ Ken ~ River City, IA

Ken, newsflash – this is a national campaign – not a senate race in a traditionally liberal state. (Barbara Boxer keeps winning in California ... think SHE could win a national election?)

Hillary already has the highest negative ratings of any previous candidate running for a nomination. Articles are running how Hillary can hurt the Democratic Party (these are democrats talking, Ken).

You keep thinking that Hillary is a uniter – not a divider. It's what the republicans want! No other candidate mobilizes republicans more than Hillary.

And seeing as how many problems they are having with them not being able to maintain security on their own nukes (at least not without outside funding) I have no problem with that type of appropriation. However I do think that we should be getting more bang for our buck from the Russians in return. The same would apply for any other country that is receiving money from us.

73% of voters under 30.
69% of moderate voters.
65% of voters who earn $100,000 or more.
64% of Independent voters.
58% of white male voters.
57% of rural voters.
56% of white Christian voters.
20% of Republican voters.

I wonder how she'd do if she weren't do 'polarizing'?

Please enlighten us on Giuliani's potential and experience as a Leader of a Nation. Of course if your not a Republican or Democrat I guess his potential or experience won't matter to you as you won't be voting.

And we should be so lucky if George Dubyah gave the world only heartburn!
His list of bequeathed ills upon the world fills so many volumes there isn't enough ink, paper, or www space
to publish them.

Hopefully George Dubyah isn't naive enough to belive that the world can't see through his feigned heartfelt sorrow regarding Rove's leaving! It doesn't take much gray matter to figure out why Rove is leaving. The outside can keep Rove, at least temporairly, a free man. And he can still be Dubyah's brain and run his interference even at a distance!

What is most pathethic is that George and Rove actually believe the world is blind to their follies!

But, do a little research and find Sen. Clinton intoducing S.1705, the `Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.

In it are the following 'highlights':
Sec 3(4): Existing programs intended to secure, monitor, and reduce nuclear stockpiles, redirect nuclear scientists, and interdict nuclear smuggling have made substantial progress, but additional efforts are needed to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism as much as possible.

Sec 4(2): the President should accelerate programs, requesting additional funding as appropriate, to prevent nuclear terrorism, including combating nuclear smuggling, securing and accounting for nuclear weapons, and eliminating, removing, or securing and accounting for formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material wherever such quantities may be;

Sec 5(a)Designation of Position- The President shall designate an individual to serve in the Executive Office of the President as the Senior Advisor to the President for the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism.

Sec 8 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for fiscal year 2008, $50,000,000–
b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for fiscal year 2008, $40,000,000
c) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State for fiscal year 2008, $10,000,000
d) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for fiscal year 2008, $100,000,000–
d)2(e) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for fiscal year 2008, $200,000,000 to assist the Government of Russia in enhancing its capacity to convert highly enriched uranium into low enriched uranium to allow additional highly enriched uranium in Russia to be converted into low enriched uranium appropriate for civil energy use and to increase the rate at which such conversion takes place.

Now, if you've taken the time to read this, you either think I'm lying, or things like the Patriot Act "Sec 4(2)" are not so distasteful to Sen. Clinton.

It appropriates 200,000,000 dollars in the US, AND 200,000,000 dollars in Russia.

Creates ANOTHER 'position' as an advisor to the president (hence another bureau).

I really think that 200,000,000 dollars she wants to send to Russia could be used much more productively here at home.

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, not only Sen. Clinton, but he rest of our 'leaders' spend money on stupid stuff like this all the time. I wish all of them would take Hastert and Pryce's lead and resign, we need some new blood in Washington to get rid of stuff like this.

When you say Hillary is lying and conniving, what are you referring to specifically? As to being weak-willed, that's a new one on me. Most of her harshest critics suggest just the opposite.

As to Bubba, his main problem was that he...well, you know. He was reasonably effective as a president until his other problem got in the way.

As to Greg the former Razorback independent, what did Hillary do in Arkansas that you didn't like? Be specific.

It appeared she revels in giving "heartburn" to the republicans.
It's the same old mud-slinging, from someone who chooses NOT to display her "experience" and poise that we would expect from a, would-be, world leader.
Today is just the icing on the cake that proves, to many Americans, that she CANNOT bring the country together.
Her divisive, confrontational politics
does not impress me, whatsoever.
Barack Obama always displays class and always acts presidential.
If elected, I am afrid that Hillary will to continue to battle that 'vast right-wing conspiracy', just like she did during her husbands's administration. So much for her interest and ability to unify America.

Her behavior reminds me of a little schoolgirl, "ya, you hit me, and I am going to hit you back".
I am not sure I want my grand-daughter having her as a role model.

I had to cut you off there Teresa, besides no commas in your sentences or your lack of how to use the "CAP LOCK" on your keyboard, Hillary could not "stand on her own" if you gave her 2 sets of legs.

She is living off of three things, a "crooked, lying, cheating, didn't do enough as President, but is somehow still loved husband", the constant hammering of an idiot President (who is not running again by the way) and lastly SOME of the populace that will vote for her just because she is a woman and it's time for one.

I am not voting for her because I think she is a lying, conniving, weak willed progressive masquerading as a moderate and masquerading in a phony arrangement with Bill.

I was politically against Geraldine Ferraro, but I respected her for her honesty and real compassion, much like Liz Dole and Shirley Chisolm.

If the Dems got behind Joe Biden who is easily their most qualified candidate, the Republicans would have a real problem.

Thankfully she will get the nomination and all the negative is going to come out again and ooops, the Republicans win again.

I WILL DO THIS OR THAT WELL THIS OR THAT IS NO LONGER ANY GOOD LETS SEE SOME REAL ACTION LET ALL PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS NO LIP SERVICE HERE REALLY DO THE DEED.

ALL I HAVE SEEN LATELY IS THAT PEOPLE OUT THERE DO NOT LIKE CLINTON BECAUSE OF THIS OR THAT WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AFRAID OF THAT FINALLY A WOMEN CAN STAND ON HER OWN AND DEAL WITH THE ISSUES AT HAND SHE TAKES AND DISHES IT BACK WHAT IS THE MATTER BOYS DON'T LIKE THAT DO YOU. AND AS FOR KARL ROVE I WISH WHEN HE LEAVES THE WHITE HOUSE HE TAKES BUSH WITH HIM TWO PEAS IN A POD BOTH STUPID AND ARROGRANT.

I have been a Republican all of my life, but I can't accept what the Cheneys and Roves have done to this party. It is no longer the party of Lincoln and TR. It is a party defined by hatred and elitism.

Rove knows that most Americans won't vote Republican because they hate gays or abortion anymore. He needs to give them something or someone else to hate. Since Hill is leading all the polls by a large margin, she is the target.

Oh, and for the woman who suggested that this is the first time Rove has gone after Hill, you need to do some serious googling.

Don't mistake my EXTREME distrust for Hillary Clinton as my complete dedication to ANY political party.

You can check my voter ID, it plainly states "Independent."

I was born and raised in Arkansas and I think that makes me particularly well suited to have an opinion on Hillary Clinton. I distrust her more than any politician I have ever seen. I personally believe she is a toxic human being who would do nothing good for this country.

Additionally, check my previous comments for the part where I say that I believe Barack Obama has the potential (albeit not as much as Giuliani right now) to unite this country.

Lastly, I will NEVER be a Republican so long as the party panders so much to Christian conservative interests.

And I will NEVER be a Democrat because the party panders to ALL interests.

"Cable King"- Please stop attacking the people who post their opinions. And if you're going to, do it right. You spelled misogyny wrong.

It is my humble opinion that Biden would make a better President than Rudy G or Barack O. Barack might be the guy of the future, but Rudy is definitely the guy of the past.

Rock oN!

Come on buddy, you are about as independent as Alabama was in the Civil War