Would Duers Vote for a Candidates Who Says...

[erpowers]

"Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

"Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing."

"help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel."

"We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program."

"In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table."

I just wanted to put these quotes up to see what DUers would say. I am not really interested in starting fights, I just want to see what people say. So, what do you say?

[bryant69]

1. I'm just going to sit back and wait for the ol' switcharoo when you announce who said them

My guess is a prominent Democratic Candidate, but it could be some other Democrat.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[blondeatlast]

4. Glass, yes? My thoughts exactly... nt

[GodlessBiker]

2. Yes. I would say I agree with all of those statements.

[sandnsea]

3. Yes

Although this particular line of PNAC bullshit should be in GDP.

[Selatius]

5. If Iran wants nukes, let them have it.

They know full well that if they use their nukes against the US, the US will wipe them off the face of earth. The same goes for North Korea. Besides, even if Iran had nukes, it may provide a stabilizing influence in the region because both Israel and Iran would be armed. The doctrine of MAD would be invoked, the same doctrine that kept the US and the USSR from going into war with each other.

As far as the second statement goes, it appears the speaker admits the US actually sponsors terrorism? That's pretty astonishing coming from an American politician.

[dysfunctional press]

12. how do you interpret the second statement to say that the u.s. sponsors terror?

:shrug:

"Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing."

it says that we have relied on intermediaries to curb iran's nuclear program, it's sponsorship of terrorism, and it's regional aggression, but our policy of doing so is failing.

is it really that difficult to understand?

[Selatius]

14. I was inserting "our" into "sponsorship of terrorism" in my interpretation.

Looking back on it, it's obvious I was incorrect, but one can play wordgames for one's amusement, no? Then again, the main point of my post wasn't about that.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I would not vote for someone saying any of those things.

[Oskie]

7. Lieberman would never take the military option off the table and

Obama campaigned for him in '06. Paying his dues since Lieberman was his mentor in the senate. SO he's just a pol...like any other. Says he's anti-war but when push comes to shove he supported Lieberman, gung-ho Iraq War. We need more progressives in the Senate and House if we want to get Iraq War over and better things done. Lieberman's in the pocket of the GOP....and Obama helped him get there. Take the rose-colored glasses off folks. And once Obama's in the WH, don't go to sleep again.

[southlandshari]

10. Which candidate passes your litmus test?

If there is a candidate out there - in any political race, at any level of government - who has never said anything you disagreed with, nor associated with anyone you disapprove of, nor holds any views different from your own....who is it?

[FDRismega]

8. but, what about all their "hope?"

[southlandshari]

Absolutely. But I won't vote for the candidate that said this....

"And Israel is not only our ally; it is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean… If the people of the Middle East are not sure what democracy means, let them look to Israel"

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. This much is undisputed."

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices… Government has to make those choices for people."


Of course, this is really a moot point, as my vote will be based on a much more comprehensive look at each candidate's words AND actions, rather than on a list of quotes selectively chosen to prove a point on an internet message board.

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. This DU'er won't.

[EFerrari]

11. Nope. Not a chance. n/t

[Vickers]

13. Sure.

Especially when you see those quotes in context.

[uppityperson]

15. It depends on the context of course. eom

[End Of The Road]

16. Depends.

I need context, and I also need to know what my options are -- how good/bad are the other candidates running in this hypothetical election?