Here you go Dan, some more info on the deal that makes my point (although i didnt know Bush gave away the farm)... incase its not on faux news. In fact, i just i looked over there and i cant find anything about the India deal on faux. Not the homepage or the international page. Shocking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

And if you cant get to that link, here's part of it:

Did Bush Blink?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 3, 2006; 12:30 PM

In addition to all the predictable reactions (pro and con) to the landmark nuclear agreement reached in India yesterday, a powerful and unexpected new concern has emerged based on a last-minute concession by President Bush.

It appears that, to close the deal during his visit, Bush directed his negotiators to give in to India's demands that it be allowed to produce unlimited quantities of fissile material and amass as many nuclear weapons as it wants.

Critics have long denounced such an agreement, saying it would reward India for its rogue nuclear-weapons program and could encourage other nations to do likewise.

But now the criticisms may focus on this question: By enabling India to build an unlimited stockpile of nuclear weapons, would this agreement set off a new Asian arms race?

And here's another question: Were Bush and his aides so eager for some good headlines -- for a change -- that they gave away the store?

Jim VandeHei and Dafna Linzer write in The Washington Post: "Bush and [Indian Prime Minister Manmohan] Singh praised the deal at a joint news conference, but they did not mention that it would allow India to produce vast quantities of fissile material, something the United States and the four other major nuclear powers -- China, Russia, France and Britain -- have voluntarily halted. The pact also does not require oversight of India's prototype fast-breeder reactors, which can produce significant amounts of super-grade plutonium when fully operating. . . .

Elisabeth Bumiller and Somini Sengupta write in the New York Times: "In New Delhi, American and Indian negotiators working all night reached agreement on the nuclear deal at 10:30 a.m. Thursday local time -- only two hours before Mr. Bush and Mr. Singh announced it -- after the United States accepted an Indian plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities. . . .

"India . . . retained the right to develop future fast-breeder reactors for its military program, a provision that critics of the deal called astonishing. In addition, India said it was guaranteed a permanent supply of nuclear fuel. . .

" 'It's not meaningful to talk about 14 of the 22 reactors being placed under safeguards,' said Robert J. Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who served as a top nonproliferation official in the Clinton administration and the early days of the Bush administration. 'What's meaningful is what the Indians can do at the unsafeguarded reactors, which is vastly increase their production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. One has to assume that the administration was so interested in concluding a deal that it was prepared to cave in to the demands of the Indian nuclear establishment.' "

"[CSIS's] Einhorn said the U.S. had initially offered to let India produce weapons materials at its two planned fast-breeder reactors -- enough to produce as many as six bombs a year. But India, underscoring its interest in a more robust weapons program, rejected the deal, he said."

Farah Stockman writes in the Boston Globe that "critics of the deal, under negotiation since July, said Bush did not drive a hard enough bargain. They said he failed to win any major restrictions on India's nuclear arsenal, such as a halt to the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

" 'India has wanted this deal for 30 years,' said Jon Wolfsthal, a former policy adviser for the US Department of Energy under President Clinton who now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'For them, this is the Holy Grail of international acceptance, and we sold it for pennies on the dollar. In the end, the major players in the Bush administration feel it's OK for India to have a large nuclear arsenal as long as its not directed at the United States, and that there might even be benefits, for instance, to deter against China.' "

Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department expert on proliferation issues in the Clinton and Bush administrations, said India had accomplished all its goals: retaining the rights to import uranium and produce plutonium while earning recognition as a nuclear power. "The Indians should be very proud of their negotiators. They achieved all of their objectives," said Einhorn, now a senior advisor at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's not clear what the administration's objectives were, but it's unlikely that they achieved them."

"It is very difficult to make the case to the international community and to the Iranians themselves that we are serious about proliferation," said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "And that's what Iran has said: 'You people don't care about proliferation, you care only about the character of the regime, and therefore why should we make any concessions?' "

Steven R. Weisman writes in the New York Times: " 'This deal not only lets India amass as many nuclear weapons as it wants, it looks like we made no effort to try to curtail them,' said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'This is Santa Claus negotiating. The goal seems to have been to give away as much as possible.' "

"[N]ow that the two sides have agreed on specific terms, the skeptics said the deal could allow India to expand its arsenal even further and possibly encourage a regional nuclear arms race."





>>Its not hard to see the point. And there are a few. According to the article US law prohibits sharing nuke info w/ countries that have not signed the treaty, so you have that nutty "legal" point for starters. And if i'm not mistaken, there is little love lost between Pakistan and India... to the point of a nuke arms race between the two. And, as my earlier post noted... And they say it sends the wrong signal to leaders of North Korea and Iran, who have snubbed their noses at international calls to halt their nuclear weapons programs. And if i'm not mistaken, the US is trying to halt the nuke programs of NK and Iran. And at this point it time, with our admin repeatedly warning about WMDs falling into terrorist hands, i find it peculiar that they find it necessary to share nuke technology w/ anyone.
>>
>>
>>American law prohibits the U.S. from sharing its nuclear technology with nations that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
>>
>
>While I am a little puzzled at the legalities of the offer, I would disagree that it sends a wrong signal. We are offering India support for civilian nuclear research. Again, India has already developed weapons, it isn't like we are offering them startup information.
>
>Iran has refused such offers, making it clear - at least to me - that they are developing (or at least considering) a weapons program.
>
>North Korea - I would be really, really surprised if they've made any progress towards a bomb. They can just barely feed themselves. They've made such outlandish claims that nothing coming out of their government is believable.