sozobe wrote:OK, here's the transcript.
http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2008/2/7/Text-of-John-McCains-CPAC-Remarks
The swath I was referring to:
Quote:They [Hillary + Obama] won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.
I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.
I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.
What does "staying on offense" to "make it unmistakably clear to Iran" that the U.S. won't tolerate their getting nukes mean, exactly?
You'll have to ask McCain for his precise meaning, but I think you are reading too much into his comments.
He was making the point that Democrats suggest that the very effort of defending ourselves against our enemies is responsible for the enmity and numbers of the enemy. This is the argument that we have created a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq; that rather than combating terrorism we have succeeded only in feeding the forces that lead to it.
I don't think you'll disagree that this is a Democratic argument.
McCain counters with not only are we going to defend ourselves against the enemy, we are going to take the fight to them: Afghanistan and Iraq are two fields of battle in this offense.
I have heard McCain speak about the problem with Iranian nukes, and he does not endorse military action over diplomacy. I'm sure that as president he will attempt to reign Iran in by going on the offense with renewed efforts for sanctions and boycotts. I'm also sure that he will never take the option of military action off the table - nor should he. Frankly, I hope that whomever the president is, he or she will take military action before allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. I fully expect all diplomatic efforts to first be exhausted, but we cannot do it alone and the extent to which other nations will cooperate with us is dependent upon a complex mix of differing interests, not whether or not they like our president.
I feel certain that an Obama White House will allow Iran to posses nuclear weapons rather than take military action. I'm not sure about a Clinton White House.
You may prefer the Obama approach which is fine, but many don't and that's why we're having an election in November.
