All in their rush to please AIPAC and Israel!!!
I think HE is going to beat you to it!
"Rivals From Both Parties Spar Over Response to Iran" by MARC SANTORA
The escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran has brought the issue to the fore in the presidential campaign, with Republican candidates talking of military action if Iran gets close to building a nuclear weapon and Democrats cautioning against a march to another war.
As the Bush administration announced sanctions yesterday on a unit of the Iranian military, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, in perhaps the broadest warning yet among the Republican candidates, told voters in New Hampshire that he would advocate a military blockade or “bombardment of some kind” if Iran did not yield to diplomatic and economic pressure to give up its nuclear program.
Mr. Romney’s statement came as Democrats warned against military action but also skirmished among themselves, particularly over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vote last month calling on the administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.
Such a designation, backed by 75 senators including Mrs. Clinton, would have gone beyond the measures taken yesterday by the administration.
[Hitlery the HAWK, huh?]
None of the other Democratic presidential candidates supported the Senate resolution, and Mrs. Clinton’s two leading opponents, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards, have said the vote provided cover for President Bush to move the country toward war, an interpretation Mrs. Clinton disputes.
[So if he does give it up, Bush will hand over the reins to the Globalist Neo-Lib Hitlery!
Hey, Bill likes the Father (not that one, the lower one)]
The administration believes Iran is engaged in a nuclear program that would give it the ability to make bomb fuel. American intelligence officials have told Congress that Iran is probably three to eight years away from its first weapon. Iran has rejected the accusation that its goal is to make nuclear weapons, saying its program is for peaceful purposes. Still, the Republicans often seem to be trying to one-up one another as to who can use the toughest language.
[But the THREAT is URGENT, huh?]
Mr. Romney was not specific about what he meant yesterday by advocating a “bombardment.”:
“If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that’s available to us. I really can’t lay out exactly how that would be done, but we have a number of options, from blockade to bombardment of some kind.”
[Better check with the lawyers first, Mitt! Or Dick Durbin, too!]
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said in an interview yesterday that the only thing more dangerous than a war with Iran would be an Iran with nuclear weapons.
[Then it's OFF to ANOTHER WAR if this rabid old fossil gets in!]
The measures proposed by President Bush today are necessary, Mr. McCain said. But he also said there was a need to bring more allies on board in joining the sanctions to make them effective.
Mr. McCain: “The view of many experts is that Iran within two years of a tipping point. They are inexorably on the road to attaining nuclear weapons.”
[That' the Neo-con Zionist experts, right?
And even if they are -- which they are not -- SO WHAT?
Bush got 7,000 of them in his crazy quiver, so FUCK OFF!!!!]
Rudolph W. Giuliani joined in praising the steps taken by the administration. Mr. Giuliani has said the prospect of a military strike against Iran was a “promise” not a threat, but he has also said he would not think about military action against Iran as a “war,” but more in terms of precise strikes.
[Wonder how the Iranians would view it]
Mrs. Clinton, who has a commanding lead in the polls and whom critics accuse of trying to find a position that will leave her least exposed to Republican assaults in a general election, has been attacked by rivals for making the same mistakes she made in 2002 before the war in Iraq by offering the administration support.
[Well, we all know what that is!]
In a reflection of how seriously Mrs. Clinton views the political threat, her campaign this week sent out a thousands of mailings to Iowans explaining her vote, saying she had worked to get the most aggressive language out of the resolution.
[Uh-huh!]
She wrote: “Let me be clear on Iran. I am opposed to letting President Bush take any military action against that country without full Congressional approval.”
[Which she will grant, of course!]
At the same time, however, Mrs. Clinton’s aides said she fully supported yesterday’s move to stepped-up sanctions.
[Of course she did!]
Mr. Edwards equated Mrs. Clinton’s vote on the Iran resolution with her previous support of the 2002 measure, which, in his view, authorized the use of military force in Iraq.
Mr. Edwards said: “Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march towards military action against Iran. I learned a clear lesson from the lead-up to the Iraq war in 2002: If you give this president an inch, he will take a mile — and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush’s new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.”
[That's all nice, Edwards, but that just means you drop in the polls more!
Only one candidate can beat Ms. Hitlery!
And for that reason, you must IMPEACH!
