[source]
Kate Hudson, the chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is implacably opposed to the retention of a modern nuclear deterrent for Britain, arguing that:
To embark on a new nuclear arms race — which is how replacing Trident would be seen abroad - would send the worst possible signal to countries that are already impatient with the nuclear weapons states for failing to comply with their obligation, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to begin the process of disarmament.
I’m not sure what sort of “signals” Kate Hudson favours. For example, in February of this year, Kate Hudson signed a letter, which was published in the Guardian, expressing her “deepest concern” at the news that the UK, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China were to report Iran to the UN security council, as part of the Anti-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty enforcement procedures. So, clearly, such multilaterial processes are also unacceptable to CND.
While we’re on the subject, it is worth mentioning that CND is also opposed to Britain developing its civil nuclear power industry:
CND believes that nuclear power does not make environmental or economic sense, and Blair’s move to bring new nuclear power stations to Britain must be stopped in its tracks.
When it comes to Iran’s nuclear programme, however, CND have a rather more, erm, nuanced position. In October 2005, CND invited a very special guest to address its annual conference:
The Iranian Ambassador, Dr Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli will speak at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s Annual Conference on the 15-16th October 2005. He will be giving Iran’s perspective on the current controversy around the Iranian civil nuclear power programme When it comes to Iran’s nuclear programme, however, CND have a rather more, erm, nuanced position. In October 2005, CND invited a very special guest to address its annual conference:
The Iranian Ambassador, Dr Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli will speak at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s Annual Conference on the 15-16th October 2005. He will be giving Iran’s perspective on the current controversy around the Iranian civil nuclear power programme
The CND is still around and siding with oppressive regimes against liberal democracies? Some things never change…
Since everyone else is doing it, let’s link to a gloating post about the Fannie Mae scandal, which involved a mistatement of roughly $11B (yes, “Billion”) in earnings, a scam designed to justify massive performance bonuses for the executives running Fannie Mae. It also turns out that those same executives were in tight with a number of major figures in the Democratic Party. Hmmm, Enron, the Oil for Food Scandal, Fannie Mae. Only one made big headlines from the start. Only one had strong links to the GOP. I’m sure that’s a coincidence.
Case in point: the New York Times and their love affair with the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. To date, the New York Times has devoted over 50 front page articles to the story! Currently, not a single individual chronicled in our book, Home of the Brave: Honoring the Unsung Heroes in the War on Terror, - some of the most highly decorated members of the United States military - has received a front-page story devoted to his or her valorous actions. Even when Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the best the New York Times could muster was a story buried on page 13.
At what point can we ask how the NY Times’ coverage of the war in Iraq differs from Tokyo Rose’s coverage of the war in the Pacific? I don’t that the NY Times staff is doing this purely out of support for American’s enemies, as my impression of the staff is that everyone on the planet except Americans are simply scenery, not people. I suspect it’s a mixture of hatred of America, fear of consequences, a complete lack of introspection, and an inability to comprehend connections between their actions and the real world.