on clean hydrogen fuel and other renewables, we would
now be in a position of world leadership. Unfortunately, it never
happened. One searches the U.S. record in vain for moral high ground.
The half-life of President Clintonís 1994 decision to supply North
Korea with two light-water reactors will haunt Washington for years to
come. Clintonís reactor deal with Pyongyang made a mockery of his
opposition to Russiaís similar assistance to Iran. Clintonís
policy position that Russian light-water reactors are dangerous, while
ours are safe, was laid to rest by a 1999 Congressional study which
revealed that the spent fuel from the reactors planned for North Korea
would not be as "proliferation resistant" as claimed.
Sufficient plutonium for as much as fifty bombs/year could be
extracted from the waste. Despite the report, construction of the
North Korean reactors started last year, andNew England today would be a toxic
wasteland, rendered uninhabitable for thousands of years. This is the
plain truth, no exaggeration. Unfortunately, reality is in short
supply at the White House. The facts have not yet penetrated what
Seymour Hersh calls the advisory "cocoon" around the
president. The Bush policy is: never speak ill of industry. Despite
911, there has been no retreat from nuclear by the U.S., here where it
counts most, however well-advised such a retreat might be.

Regarding nuclear weapons, the U.S. record is just as bleak. In
February 2003 there was a White House leak--probably intended--that
next summer President Bush will convene a conference of experts to
discuss the next generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. (Julian Borger,
"U.S. Plan For New Nuclear Arsenal: Secret Talks May Lead to
Breaking Treaties," The Guardian UK, February 19, 2003) The