You really need to start posting what you are talking about. I haven't heard anything about mangoes. Is there a particular policy you are referring to?

I don't like hanging the FEMA director out to dry, even if he's a marginal leader.

I haven't heard anything about mangoes. Is there a particular policy you are referring to?

i think he's referring to the deal bush made while in india which outsources mango eating from them to us (and under the terms of which, everyone here capable of doing so will be required to ingest x number of mangoes per week). i believe it's officially known as the 'ghandi with the wind mangoes for freedom compact'.

Perhaps if you read more, you would have your answer.

"i think he's referring to the deal bush made while in india which outsources mango eating from them to us (and under the terms of which, everyone here capable of doing so will be required to ingest x number of mangoes per week). i believe it's officially known as the 'ghandi with the wind mangoes for freedom compact'."

Ah. I thought it might have something to do with the little guy on SNL in the hotpants. Given the choice, I'd prefer to import Mr. Peepers, or to be honest, I could've used a little more cowbell.

ahem,

I went and checked, and we did make some sort of agreement about buying more mangos from India. Thing is, we have no domestic mango production. Are you saying that we should be buying from Mexico, or Central America?

Who is harmed, exactly, by us buying more mangos from India? Do you have a problem with the fruit itself?

I'd prefer to import Mr. Peepers

at one time--not that long ago btw--we were able to sustain a thriving domestic mr. peepers production. it's not only sad india-cation of how the mighty have fallen, but dammit are we ready to accept a milquetoast character who sounds like apu from the quickeemart?

. Are you saying that we should be buying from Mexico, or Central America?

nawww. even if ya forget about nafta, it makes more sense to get our mangoes from halfway around the world.

my real problem with all of this may best be understood in light of a response provided by karan bhatia, deputy us trade representative, during an interview Link
with businessweek's bombay bureau chief, manjeet kripalani (bhatia is profiled by the magazine as follows: (he) worked closely with Trade Representative Rob Portman to strengthen commercial ties between the two nations. Last year, as Assistant Secretary for Aviation with the Transportation Dept., Bhatia also helped put together the Open Skies agreement between the U.S. and India, dramatically expanding air travel between the two countries.

Just 39 years old, Bhatia, a Princeton and Columbia Law School grad, was one of the few Administration officials to accompany Bush to India.)

"In the mango case, we met for the first time in November. Nath made a strong pitch, saying we can resolve civil nuclear matters but to millions of Indians, the ability to sell mangoes [to the U.S.] strikes close to their heat. Portman understood that at once -- he comes from Ohio, which is an exporting state. We called it "the mango problem." But now there's no longer a problem.".

dunno bout the rest of yall, but i'm gonna sleep much more soundly knowing that while bush just rendered non-proliferation a moot issue, milions of indians feel better...in a couple years i'll be able to buy authentic indian mangoes.

hmmmm for some reason, this one don't seem to be updating properly.

"make mangoes, not bombs!"

Man when I saw the word mango in this article I was curious about what that had to do with politics. I still don';t get what AsWaysOpen is saying but I can understand the replies a bit. I agree with KB about the buying mangoes from the other side of the word thing. Mangoes here in Puerto Rico are so abundant that they actually line many of the main streets here and can make very big messes in the satreets. Not to mention that people here eat it for free all the time. Want mangoes? Buy them from Puerto Rico, they can't eat enough of them to maintain the streets clean.

Kingbee: Dunno about millions. The editorial I read on an Indian website said that this was going to amount to just a few crates a year as a symbolic gesture. I'll see if I can find the link.

Meh, I can't find it now. Google news sucks. Same keywords, totally different results, even when I put yesterday's date in.

P.S. I'm still waiting for AsWayOpens to pipe up and explain what this is all about.

March 16th, 2006 12:40 pm
Bush Confronted on Nuclear Pact


While speaking about Medicare, the president gets a surprise challenge from a negotiator of the nonproliferation treaty that India never signed.

By Peter Wallsten / Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Two weeks after signing a controversial nuclear cooperation agreement with India, President Bush had a surprise encounter Wednesday with one of the original negotiators of the very anti-nuclear treaty that critics say is threatened by the deal.

The exchange capped an afternoon of unusually confrontational questions posed to Bush by a public audience — a change for a White House that has frequently organized friendly crowds to show Bush in a positive light.

The India challenge came from Lawrence Weiler, 85, a resident at the Washington-area retirement center that was the venue for the Wednesday event, intended to promote the president's new Medicare prescription drug program.

When Bush opened the floor to questions, and one man stood to thank the president for making U.S. civil nuclear technology available to India, Weiler could not contain himself.

"Mr. President, there are some — and I guess I would include myself — who have different views about the Indian agreement, because they're concerned about the effect that the agreement will have on the capacity of India to stimulate its own production of nuclear weapons," he said.

Weiler told Bush that he was one of the few surviving negotiators of the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty, which was ratified by the world's major nuclear powers and more than 180 other nations to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

India never signed the treaty, and critics charge that Bush's plan to let U.S. firms begin sharing civil nuclear technology with India would help that country expand its weapons program and invigorate a nuclear arms race by inspiring other nations to ignore the treaty.

Weiler, who worked for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, went on to ask Bush to consider adopting a "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons as an additional enticement to keep the treaty intact.

"The basic bargain there was that other countries would give up their nuclear weapons if we, the nuclear powers, would engage in a program of nuclear disarmament," he told Bush. "The point is that we cannot expect that agreement, that basic agreement, to hold if the United States … has the position that we might initiate a nuclear war if it is necessary."

Bush nodded but made no promises. "I'll take your words to heart, and think about it," he told Weiler. "Thank you. No commitment standing right here, of course."

Bush had not been challenged directly on the deal since his trip to India this month, which aides hailed as a success due largely to the agreement between the U.S. president and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

As part of the deal, which requires the approval of Congress and of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, India agreed to open 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors to international inspectors for the first time.

India retains the right to keep its other reactors secret for military purposes, and to build as many additional weapons-producing facilities as it wishes. Bush on Wednesday called the agreement a victory for limiting the spread of weapons.

"Part of the Indian deal is to actually get them to formally join some of the institutions that you helped — your work created," Bush told Weiler.

Earlier in his comments, Bush praised the agreement as a boon for the environment and a way to cut U.S. gas prices.

"When India's demand for fossil fuels goes up, it causes the price of our fossil fuels to go up," he said. "And so, therefore, to encourage them to use a renewable source of energy that doesn't create greenhouse gas, this makes a lot of sense."

The agreement is also backed by nuclear technology firms that stand to make billions of dollars by selling to India.

As the White House prepares to lobby Congress to approve the deal, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled one of its contentions in a Washington Post op-ed article this week when she predicted the agreement would mean "thousands of new jobs for American workers."

But Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who has spearheaded a coalition to oppose the deal, questioned the contentions made by Bush and Rice.

He said that India currently produced a tiny fraction of its power from oil and that its clear aim was to sharply escalate its weapons production.

Markey pointed to reports this week that Russia was considering reviving an old proposal to sell nuclear technologies to India — a deal that the U.S. once helped block — and that other nations such as China and Iran would follow suit.

"It's a domino effect that will lead to the complete collapse of the nuclear proliferation regime that's been protecting our planet for a generation," he said.

*Yawn*. The head of the UN's IAEA supports this deal and says it will PROMOTE non-proliferation. More "If Bush does it, it must be wrong" knee-jerk stuff like the UAE deal. Anti-Bushites are totally set on offending every single nation that considers themselves our ally.

You do reailze of course that when the treaty was signed in 1968 that India was nowhere near to being a nuclear nation?

*Yawn*.

Ditto.

Post something other than what your handlers want you to say. You do have a brain, right?