Bush, Cheney, Rice, Clinton, Edwards, Obama: "All Options are on the Table".....

[Flabbergasted]

Bush: 'All options are on the table' regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm

Cheney: "all options are still on the table."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254219,00.html

Rice: Rice says all options on table with Iran

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/05/22/rice_says_all_options_on_table_with_iran/

Clinton: "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html

John Edwards: "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran"

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

Obama: “no option, including military action, (should be taken) off the table”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3371763,00.html



Why? Iran is not a threat to this country. Iran is not a threat to a single citizen of this country.

Why in God's name would our top democrats be willing to follow Bush, Cheney, and Rice's propaganda program?

We will be fooled again.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. The dems are refering to if we are attacked.

[Flabbergasted]

4. No they are not.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Why would anyone ever take options off the table--including impeachment?

Telling another country that we won't take you on, no matter how dangerous you're acting, is appeasement. It doesn't mean we're going to use military force--just that we haven't totally ruled it out.

[Flabbergasted]

5. So why not leave all the options on the table concerning Venezuala.

No one talks about the all the options being left on the table in reference to any other country?

[TwilightGardener]

14. All options are on the table for all countries. We'll defend ourselves

and our allies no matter who is attacking or is an imminent threat. Why is that hard to accept? I trust Democrats to know that military force can be ruled out 99.9% of the time.

[Flabbergasted]

19. There is a fundamental difference here if you will....

Iran is geopolitically extrmely important to the World Political system. Venezuala is far less. Put into context making overtures for an unnecessary attack on Iran makes alot of sence.

[bling bling]

3. Oh my god. What a warmonger that Hillary is. So typical of the DLC.

Just thought I'd get it out of the way. Now, hopefully nobody else will feel the need to pile on Hillary for her comments while conveniently ignoring everyone else, since I've already done it.

[rinsd]

8. hehehehe

:evilgrin:

[rinsd]

6. Why in God's name are you distorting what Democrats have said!

Why chop the quotes up and basically make it like their views are the same as Bush. RTice & Cheney.

Here's what Edwards said.

"Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

Here's Obama.

"
“The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy,” he said.

Even though all options were on the table, Obama said the utmost efforts should be devoted to “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions”.

This is equivalent to saying Kucinich has the same beliefs as Republicans because he voted against the Democrats plan.

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. I have an innocent question........

why is it that Iran has no right to enrichment programs? Why are we the nation to say who can and cannot have nuclear capabality? Do you trust our criminal in charge any more than their idiot in charge? I dont.
Do I want Iran to have nuclear weapons? NO! But I dont want Israel to have them either. Why do they get to have them and not their neighbors?
These are honestly innocent questions?
Anyone have the answers?

[rinsd]

16. Because its easier to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle then put it back in

The goal is to prevent countries from acquiring them because its impossible to get them to give them up.

A MidEast armed with nuclear weapons is recipe for disaster.

I certainly wouldn't want to depend upon MAD in the MIdEast would you?

[Flabbergasted]

18. You have alot to learn about propaganda.

[rinsd]

20. You should take a class or two.

Then you wouldn't handle it so clumsily so that it can easily be pointed out.

[SaveElmer]

7. You mean why are the Democrats...

Advocating the use of the exact same strategy in dealing with a potential adversary as every President since George Washington had...

[SaveElmer]

9. George Bush and Dick Cheney are lying...they do not advocate all options...

Being on the table...

They have ruled out direct diplomatic negotiation with Iran...which all Democrats advocate

[Flabbergasted]

10. Last time I checked they were looking into diplomacy?

[SaveElmer]

11. And...you believe them?

Their version of diplomacy is to wait till the other side gives in to their demands...then they will talk...c'mon you can't be that naive

[Flabbergasted]

12. Why believe the democrats. Here is Bill Clinton on Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/31/iraq.pm/index.html

[SaveElmer]

13. Are you serious...

Are you really seriously telling us that an article from 7 years ago is in any way relevent to today...and oh by the way...Bill Clinton did not start a war with Iraq...

You are soooo desperate to trash other Democrats to make Kucinich's inaction look good that you take the word of George Bush and Dick Cheney...

[Flabbergasted]

17. Read the article I think it may enlighten you.....