Go Home

Get Adobe Flash player

Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (493)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

[h/t Heather]

As Heather already noted, Willard made a big show out of making these outrageous and specious claims about Iran:

We must not allow Iran to have nuclear weapon. If they do, the world changes. America will be at risk. And some day nuclear weaponry will be used. If I'm President, that will not happen. If we re-elect Barack Obama, it will happen," he said at the CNN Republican debate on Wednesday night.

That he made such a claim comes as no surprise. After all, Newt Gingrich made this insane claim in the same exchange:

This is an administration which, as long as you're America's enemy, you're safe.

And let's not leave out Rick Santorum:

In the meantime, when the radicals in Egypt and the radicals in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood, when they rise against either a feckless leader or a friend of ours in Egypt, the president is more than happy to help them out.

When they're going up against a dangerous theocratic regime that wants to wipe out the state of Israel, that wants to dominate the radical Islamic world and take on the great Satan, the United States, we do nothing. That is a president that must go. And you want a leader who will take them on? I'll do that.

Three outrageous claims in the span of six minutes, and a moderator who followed up with each of them asking what exactly they might do to stop Iran, a sovereign country, from arming themselves with nuclear weapons.

Oh, wait. No, John King said nothing. Nothing. No followup with Willard on his claim that he, and he alone would prevent that nation from arming. No followup with Newtie about whether he consulted with Gaddafi and Bin Laden before making such an inane statement. And no followup with Santorum about how he could refer to the United States as the Great Satan while claiming Satan was attacking the United States.


So let's be serious for a minute. Three out of the four candidates were calling for war against Iran even though we have no proof they are even trying to build nuclear weapons or want to. Only one candidate on that stage had a lick of sense, and his words were carefully parsed. Ron Paul said this:

The Iranians can't possibly attack anybody. And we're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon. Now, just think about the Cold War. The Soviets had 30,000 of them. And we talked to them. The Soviets killed 100 million people and the Chinese, and we worked our way out of it.

And if you want to worry about nuclear weapons, worry about the nuclear weapons that were left over from the Soviet Union. They're still floating around. They don't have them all detailed. So we're ready to go to war. I say going to war rapidly like this is risky and it's reckless.

Barack Obama agrees with him, at least with regard to loose nukes and diplomatic solutions, though Ron Paul also stated our opposition to them having nuclear weapons is encouraging them to obtain one. Still, early in his administration he identified the loose nuclear weapons issue as the biggest threat to national security we have, and set to doing something about it. Here's what Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic has to say about Iran and Obama:

There is another reason we have arrived at this moment of high tension: The Obama Administration, through its stalwart opposition to the Iranian nuclear program, has narrowed Iran's maneuverability, and forced the regime to make some obvious errors (the alleged sponsorship of an attempt to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington, for instance). It is precisely because the Obama Administration has constructed a sanctions program without precedent, and because the Obama Administration has funded and supported multinational cyber-sabotage efforts against the Iranian nuclear program, that Iran is panicking and lashing-out.

It is not only Israeli leaders who have doubted Obama's commitment to stop Iran's nuclear program; Iran's leaders themselves didn't take Obama seriously. After all, George W. Bush labeled Iran's government a member of the axis of evil, but then did nothing much at all to thwart its ambitions. But Obama, while avoiding rhetorical drama, has actually done more to stop Iran than the Bush Administration ever did.

Why didn't John King force these warmongering bloodthirsty candidates to admit they want a war with Iran? They should have had to go on the record about it, because they would have discovered that only 17 percent of Americans think we should go to war with Iran, regardless of what Fox News says. And yet that's what each and every one of those candidates whose name is not Ron Paul was saying on that stage Wednesday night. They were standing up there saying that war with Iran is inevitable, and that President Obama is some kind of wimp for not engaging in that fashion.

Why was John King silent? Could it be because war is profitable for CNN? After all, their ratings soar when there's a war or breaking news. Or is he a collaborator?

Someone had better step up soon and force these candidates to actually talk turkey about what they think they will do as President. As long as they get to make sweeping pronouncements with absolutely no foundation or follow through, they just throw red meat to the bloodthirsty and then wear it like a badge of honor.

About karoli
karoli's picture
Card-carrying member of we, the people.
Share This Post

Link To This Post

CafeenMan's picture

Not to mention that Iran surely doesn't want a war with us. What's his face might talk tough but he's pandering to his people.

I wonder why the right wing keeps complaining about having to pay taxes yet there's never a problem with starting another war or three.

Here's my idea: If you want war then you must do two things: 1) Enlist for the front lines. 2) Put up $50K PER PERSON in your household up front. You want it. You pay for it and fight it.

JHR1956's picture

............there's never a problem with starting another war or three.

Why is it that we can ALWAYS find the money to fight a war? It's insane. We can't take care of our own people, but we can spend untold billions on a useless war that accomplishes nothing.

Just like with Iraq, we're isolating Iran with a number of sanctions. If we really think they are a threat, we're positioned to keep a close eye on them as things are currently. Don't stir the pot by starting a war and disbursing the 'bad guys' who knows where.

If Israel wants to go to war with them, that's their call........not ours.

cund_gulag's picture

that he's good looking, and he can read.

Other than that, he's about as smart as a rutabaga - just like the rest of Wolf' "F*cking" Blitzer's "Worst F*cking Political F*cking Team In The F*cking History Of F*cking Broadcast F*cking Mass F*cking Mediums."

I wouldn't hire him to moderate a debate between tomato's and tomahto's, since either one is brighter than that rutabaga.

Astro's picture

He's just afraid that Newt will yell at him again.

myshadow's picture

He just sat on his tongue when newt pulled the 'infanticide' card out.
I don't know why you would relegate kings total quisling capitulation to republican talking points, and his failure to challenge language, context, history and facts.
He isn't passive, he is an accomplice.

Nobody for President's picture

Don't shit where you eat.

stan9fromouterspace's picture

...know which side of their bread is bloodied.

pissed off patricia's picture

Last night Jon Stewart played some videos of republican predictions back when the President was running for president. They were just as absurd as any you hear from these republican candidates.

At this point the debates are just white noise and not even entertaining. As far as fun, they aren't even as much fun as watching monkeys play with poo. At least monkeys are doing what they naturally want to do. These guys are simply making noise and saying anything they think their base wants to hear. Like Newt saying gas is eight dollars a gallon in Florida. I would like some background on that remark because those of us down here haven't heard of such.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.

dixie blood's picture

The average price for a gallon of regular in FL is $3.70. Pig Newton is a liar. But, what's new?

Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

charges a shitload more than nearby stations and seems to take pride in gouging tourists who are topping off rental cars. I think they get lots of media coverage by being so high-priced. And for many European tourists, the prices still seem reasonable.

"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."

---Southwest Airlines

pissed off patricia's picture

I wish we could find out right now how much that station is charging. I doubt Newt has been down here since they were campaigning and back then we didn't have the speedy price hikes we have now.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.

dixie blood's picture

I worked at Patrick AFB for 5+ months in 2010 and flew in and out of Orlando serveral times. I was warned about the stations near the airport. They were usually about .50 to $1 higher per gallon than the other stations away from the airport, if I remember correctly. So that would make today's price there under a worse case scenario about 4.70 for a gallon of regular. IMHO.

Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

Trantorian's picture

Wanted to get gas in Barstow. It's on a relatively unpopluated stretch of I-15. The Chevron there charged $4.59 for regular. I drove another 70 miles to San Bernardino and got it for $4.05. That's gouging. BTW in Vegas (Henderson) it was $3.52.

Did Newt really say 8 bucks? Amazing.

The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith

pissed off patricia's picture

I didn't see the entire debate last night as I fell asleep just after it began. I did get up early enough this morning to see the rerun of it on CNN. When I heard Newt say that about the price of gas, I just said out loud, "No it's not". Then I realized these debates are held in fact free zones. No one is held to anything like facts, they just say shit and therefore it's republican gospel.

I would love to see a fact check on everything they said last night. It would be fun and it should be mandatory no matter which party is debating.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.

stan9fromouterspace's picture

The news services would provide this, if they had, you know, "journalists" or "news" or provided a "service."

for his trip to the Moon colony.


Captain Kangaroo's picture

That was really good. C+L should put that up but they should also look back and see what these tuyrds have said about Obama in the past. See what Billy the Bloody has said. See what Britney Hume has said. See what George Will has said. See what McShithead has said in the past. Go back about 4 years. I wish I had the wherewithal. I would do it.

Because not only are they not entertaining, they're annoying.

Captain Kangaroo's picture

John King is a wimp. He actually apologized for asking about the contraception fiasco that the Republicans have gotten themselves into. He was afraid. He cowered. After the debate they went to Erick Erickson for commentary. I wonder if he called Romney a goat fucker. I had to turn it off. I wonder if they had Dana Loesch to piss on the whole thing? Anybody see? Ted Turned must be so bummed at what CNN has become.

The Glenn Beck Review's picture

when they hired Glenn Beck.

It is nothing more now than a joke disguised as a news network.

That's better than Fixed "News" which is an assault on facts disguised as a news network.

All corporate media do well during wars, and MSNBC will not stand up to Obama's wars. Remember Libya, the unconstitutionally waged war? Didn't hear calls for Obama's impeachment there, did you?

"The antidote to bad speech is more speech." ~~J.S. Mill

Trantorian's picture

Romney's a vulture capitalist, but you screw ONE GOAT...

The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith

majicman's picture

The USA has 30,000 nuclear warheads. Israel has roughly 1200. It's a very troubled area that dates back to Dinosaur poop and both factions in the middle east.I don't trust. To say Iran is going to delve into Nuclear power and deprive them of this is insane. Even if they had one bomb...is that going to make a difference.
Lets face it, the strange bedfellows of the USA & Israel want Iran of the map........just leave the oil please.

Tom Servo's picture

Given that Republicans vow to attack their country once they get back in power

It is also clear from these Republican debates that the US will serve Israel, Israel wants war with Iran0 but they;d rather not do the actual fighting or dying- they'd rather the US fight a war as proxy

Anklebiter's picture

It is too costly to feed poor kids. Too costly to allow women to protect themselves from the Viagra induced men of the world. Too costly to educate kids or pay their teachers. Too costly to save jobs.

However, start a war just to prove we are tough against an enemy that is not currently a threat - there is money for that.

pjmurphy's picture

"Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal
I walk tha corner to tha rubble that used to be a library
Linin' to the mind cemetery now
What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive an movin'
They don't gotta burn tha books they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells."

reluctant leader's picture

And the corporate media won't grill any of them over it, but the United States can't allow any nation with the amount of naural resourcesa country like Iran has to be able to defend itself from us taking said natural resoures from them. Most especially if it's oil. And most, most especially if that country sells oil for anything besides the US Dollar.

The oligarchs do not care about the price of oil as much as they care about the currency that is required to trade oil.

The Glenn Beck Review's picture

Ghadaffy was planning on switching over to the Euro and that -- more than anything else -- triggered the US lead (from behind) war on his regime.

"The antidote to bad speech is more speech." ~~J.S. Mill

allstonpete's picture

...the boy who cried wolf too many times!
Everybody believed the Republicans when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan; now that this situation with Iran is escalating; nobody will believe them that this is indeed a legitimate threat. Now, Iran is a much, much larger country and we shouldn't go to war. Keep the embargoes, etc....

rphiladams's picture

not everyone. It's just that those who were outspoken about the folly of invading Iraq based on a bunch of lies from the Bushists were shouted down and labeled as everything from anti-American pro-Islamic domestic terrorists.

If we can't tax the rich, can we at least eat them?

J²'s picture

He might as well sit next to Wretch on Foxy Fiends in the morning. At least, there, we'd know he was just there to look pretty. Maybe when sweaty-guy-who-is-not-steve-doofus goes on vacation?

ricky's picture

Why, pray tell, should a journalist be a debate moderator?


derekthered's picture


those mean old GOP warmongers, they are just not nice, not nice at all; give me a Democratic warmonger any day of the week, much better. because you see, when someone like our emperor orders a drone strike, or imposes economic sanctions on a country for doing the exact same thing that we do? well, that's a horse of a different color. it's all very simple really, those iranians are just not superior like us, not exceptional at all.

this post is really breathtaking in that it assumes all the claptrap put out by our lords, all while presenting itself as the voice of reason, but there is one thing i agree upon let's "talk turkey" about what is going on.

iran is a theocracy which oppresses their population, does this give us the right to control their weapons production? no it doesn't.
is a cool, calm, and collected warmonger better than "warmongering bloodthirsty" candidates? not hardly.

there is one other thing i agree with "Someone had better step up soon and force these candidates to actually talk turkey about what they think they will do as President." and this includes candidate Obama, because once he gets the nomination that is what he will be once more, a candidate.

nope, we will go thru this election season, Obama will most likely be re-elected, and then just like most of our presidents since the founding of this country, he will send in the troops, and the drones, and we can watch it all on CNN.

wanna bet?

all this is beside the point, we have black ops in country already, have had for years, do a Google search. the Israelis have been killing Iranian scientists, but that's all good, they can do what they want, after all, they are the "chosen people", can't get much more exceptional than that.

red meat to the American Exceptionalist crowd? you bet. we'll make a nice little quiche for those who prefer their warmongering with a bit more culture, or perhaps a fondue?

Peter G's picture

for doing exactly what a debate moderator should do. His job is to lay out the question to be discussed and not enter into the debate himself. He gave them the rope to hang themselves with their own opinions and that is exactly what he should have done.

Hasa Diga Eebowai

ricky's picture

from the bitter land of tar sands, I fear.

Of course moderators should join the debate. Moderation in the defense of moderating is a no-no, Vertrude.


old_55's picture

Santorum didn't call the US "the great Satan", any more than my hyperbolic reiteration of his ridiculous statements means I agree with him. The man's sincerely expressed opinions are silly enough to hang him on (I don't mean literally). Let's stick to legitimate criticisms of what he actually believes.

character first's picture

John King, the nice Jewish boy, is an Israeli Firster. He is afraid that if he gets out of line he will be cleaning the rest rooms at CNN.

The warmongers, Mitt,Newt, and Rick, are three of the biggest PUSSIES America has ever seen. Why follow a boy who was not man enough to serve.

Dave Wolf's picture

Hey, how about we just forcably "Annex" Saudi Arabia. We then can use all their oil.

I am sure they will view us as LIBERATORS!

Oh, and it seems they already share the same respect for women as the Republican party.

fastfeat's picture


"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."

---Southwest Airlines

RustyPatina's picture

Um, excuse me, Willard. Nuclear weaponry has already been used. We did it. So, since we've been so responsible with our nuclear weapons, we should dictate to other countries?

g-man's picture

Its a tragedy that these candidates can spout the most vile and idiotic nonsense and the media whores on the news side can't point out fact versus fiction. My guess is they also don't know shit from Shiloh. Pandering dicks to the Washington inside track are afraid to lose privilege to the club. No wonder Russia Today (on cable or UTube) is growing in popularity, you can't trust US media.

HeavyHitter's picture

King was acting like an abused spouse, almost cringing as he asked each question and failing to insit upon an answer to his questions. He lacks the cojones for the job.

Mittens should be confined for his and our mutual protection.

Ape-Man's picture

King didn't moderate.
Instead he allowed the so called 'debate' to degenerate into another reich-wing, cookoo's-nest infomercial.

"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-