More 'Malarkey' from Congressman Markey

Ed Lasky
American Thinker has commented before on Edward Markey's affection for America's enemies (for example, Venezuelan tyrant-in-the making Hugo Chavez ).

Now we have this principle on display again (with an added dash of hypocrisy) when it comes to supplying nuclear technology to nations in the Middle East.   Today's Boston Globe has an article 
 about the growing interest among some "experts' and Congressmen in having the international community supply a nuclear processing plant to Iran as a way to discourage its own nuclear program-which is quite extensive and certainly on the verge of being beyond the point of return given the billions invested and the sanctions that Iran has had to live through on behalf of the program.

Congressman Markey supports these efforts to provide a nuclear plant for the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world.    This would pose perils.  At any time, Iran could kick out the international personnel monitoring the plant. Meanwhile, Iranians would be that much closer to learning the technology behind  mastering of the nuclear fuel cycle. Once Iran gets a plant, what would stop Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and other nations from demanding one?  

But Markey goes beyond this step and displays an anomalous position when the same prospect is floated regarding Saudi Arabia. In this case, Markey opposes efforts to give nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.   His commentary in today's Wall Street Journal.
Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.

Now, some Markey supporters might draw a distinction between the two situations. In one case, Iran's plant would be operated by international personnel; the other case, Saudi Arabia itself would be the beneficiary of nuclear technology. However, this may be a distinction without much real world significance. Iran could use the international plant to support its own efforts and compel international monitors to leave when it suits Iranian interests to do so (given the fecklessness of the international community and the International Atomic Energy Agency in particular, such a scenario would not be unexpected).

Conversely, America can impose controls on nuclear technology given to Saudi Arabia-an imperfect ally of America but nevertheless more of an ally than Iran.

Is there a way to square, to reconcile, Markey's contrary positions? Yes. They can be explained by his principle-and the principle of many of his party peers to merely oppose EVERY ACTION the Bush Administration takes.

Regarding Iran. the Bush Administration opposes Iran's nuclear program. Therefore, Markey will seek to help Iran in its nuclear efforts. In the case of Saudi Arabia, Bush seems to want to get ahead of the curve and dissuade an independent effort by the Saudis to develop their own nuclear program. His efforts seem to seek to control the nuclear genie. Nevertheless, because Bush proposes, Markey opposes.

Perhaps if Markey and many of his fellow Democrats (and some Republcians) would seek to increase American supplies of energy (offshore drilling, ANWAR, nuclear energy) we would relieve the chokeold that oil tyrants hold over America-and the world.

One would hope for more clear-headed thinking from our Congressmen. Perhaps we should seek to start referring to this particular Congressman as Congressman Malarkey.

American Thinker has commented before on Edward Markey's affection for America's enemies (for example, Venezuelan tyrant-in-the making Hugo Chavez ).

Now we have this principle on display again (with an added dash of hypocrisy) when it comes to supplying nuclear technology to nations in the Middle East.   Today's Boston Globe has an article 
 about the growing interest among some "experts' and Congressmen in having the international community supply a nuclear processing plant to Iran as a way to discourage its own nuclear program-which is quite extensive and certainly on the verge of being beyond the point of return given the billions invested and the sanctions that Iran has had to live through on behalf of the program.

Congressman Markey supports these efforts to provide a nuclear plant for the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world.    This would pose perils.  At any time, Iran could kick out the international personnel monitoring the plant. Meanwhile, Iranians would be that much closer to learning the technology behind  mastering of the nuclear fuel cycle. Once Iran gets a plant, what would stop Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and other nations from demanding one?  

But Markey goes beyond this step and displays an anomalous position when the same prospect is floated regarding Saudi Arabia. In this case, Markey opposes efforts to give nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.   His commentary in today's Wall Street Journal.
Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.

Now, some Markey supporters might draw a distinction between the two situations. In one case, Iran's plant would be operated by international personnel; the other case, Saudi Arabia itself would be the beneficiary of nuclear technology. However, this may be a distinction without much real world significance. Iran could use the international plant to support its own efforts and compel international monitors to leave when it suits Iranian interests to do so (given the fecklessness of the international community and the International Atomic Energy Agency in particular, such a scenario would not be unexpected).

Conversely, America can impose controls on nuclear technology given to Saudi Arabia-an imperfect ally of America but nevertheless more of an ally than Iran.

Is there a way to square, to reconcile, Markey's contrary positions? Yes. They can be explained by his principle-and the principle of many of his party peers to merely oppose EVERY ACTION the Bush Administration takes.

Regarding Iran. the Bush Administration opposes Iran's nuclear program. Therefore, Markey will seek to help Iran in its nuclear efforts. In the case of Saudi Arabia, Bush seems to want to get ahead of the curve and dissuade an independent effort by the Saudis to develop their own nuclear program. His efforts seem to seek to control the nuclear genie. Nevertheless, because Bush proposes, Markey opposes.

Perhaps if Markey and many of his fellow Democrats (and some Republcians) would seek to increase American supplies of energy (offshore drilling, ANWAR, nuclear energy) we would relieve the chokeold that oil tyrants hold over America-and the world.

One would hope for more clear-headed thinking from our Congressmen. Perhaps we should seek to start referring to this particular Congressman as Congressman Malarkey.