(no subject)
So you might remember Bush & Cheney's "all options on the table" rhetoric, starting in 2005, regarding the possibility of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.
Reporter: "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
Our President: "All options are on the table."
It is not okay that statements like that feel like the same old thing at this point, but that's how it is.
Then there are these guys:
"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."
-John Edwards
We cannot not, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."
-Hilary Clinton
Steve Kroft: "Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons"?
Barack Obama: "I think we should keep all options on the table..."
Every single one of them, Bush included, followed up those statements by saying that they prefer diplomacy and hope that the problem can be resolved with talks. Also, the piece that I got all this from points out that presidential candidates traditionally avoid interfering in the current administration's diplomacy. And the question Obama was asked doesn't directly refer to nuclear force, but it's still disturbing that he's using that same euphemism.
It's as simple as this: a nuclear attack to prevent nuclear proliferation makes no sense, and would make all of us less safe. And the fact that the major Democratic presidential candidates not only refuse to make that statement, but they repeat our war monger President's phrasing in refusing to make it, is one more indication of just how broken our system is.
Reporter: "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
Our President: "All options are on the table."
It is not okay that statements like that feel like the same old thing at this point, but that's how it is.
Then there are these guys:
"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."
-John Edwards
We cannot not, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."
-Hilary Clinton
Steve Kroft: "Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons"?
Barack Obama: "I think we should keep all options on the table..."
Every single one of them, Bush included, followed up those statements by saying that they prefer diplomacy and hope that the problem can be resolved with talks. Also, the piece that I got all this from points out that presidential candidates traditionally avoid interfering in the current administration's diplomacy. And the question Obama was asked doesn't directly refer to nuclear force, but it's still disturbing that he's using that same euphemism.
It's as simple as this: a nuclear attack to prevent nuclear proliferation makes no sense, and would make all of us less safe. And the fact that the major Democratic presidential candidates not only refuse to make that statement, but they repeat our war monger President's phrasing in refusing to make it, is one more indication of just how broken our system is.