WALKER: 'VERY POSSIBLE' WAR WITH IRAN ON INAUGURATION DAY

[homersapien 11,357]

I don't see how this is is going to help his candidacy.

http://www.huffingto...4b0d2ded39f57c2

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ® said over the weekend that the next president of the United States needed to be prepared to take aggressive military action on their very first day in office, including against Iran.

The presidential contender, who had promised to "terminate" the nuclear agreement with Iran upon his inauguration, made the remark while speaking with reporters at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, on Saturday. Walker was asked about a criticism from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ®, who asserted during a town hall last week that unwinding the agreement on day one was an unrealistic promise.

“One thing that I won’t do is just say, as a candidate, ‘I’m going to tear up the agreement on the first day,’” Bush said in Nevada on Thursday. First, said Bush, he needs to have his team in place. "That’s great, that sounds great but maybe you ought to check in with your allies first, maybe you ought to appoint a secretary of state, maybe secretary of defense, you might want to have your team in place, before you take an act like that.”

Asked about Bush's remarks on Saturday, Walker argued -- without mentioning Iran directly -- that a president ought to be ready to take action from the moment they step foot into the Oval Office.

"He may have his opinion. I believe that a president shouldn't wait to act until they put a cabinet together or an extended period of time, I believe they should be prepared to act on the very first day they take office," he said. "It's very possible, God forbid that this would happen, but very possible, that the next president could be called to take aggressive actions, including military actions, on their very first day in office."

After Walker aides accused Bush of softening on his opposition to the agreement, the former Florida governor issued a statementto The Weekly Standard assuring that he “would begin immediately to responsibly get us out of this deal.”

The dispute between the two early GOP frontrunners comes just weeks before the first debate, hosted by Fox News in August. It also follows Walker's efforts to bone upon foreign policy, positioning himself as one of the most hawkish candidates in the 2016 Republican presidential field. Addressing conservatives at the Family Leadership Summit on Saturday, Walker said the U.S. needed "a foreign policy that puts steel in the face of our enemies," and one that unapologetically asserted power across the globe.

[TexasTiger 12,826]

Dude's reckless.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Finally ! A real American !!!

YES !!

[quietfan 233]

A president may be forced into action a moment after he takes the oath by circumstances beyond his control.

An intelligent leader with the option of setting his own timetable for his own actions does his groundwork first, organizes his team, consults others, and doesn't go off half-cocked.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

A president may be forced into action a moment after he takes the oath by circumstances beyond his control.

An intelligent leader with the option of setting his own timetable for his own actions does his groundwork first, organizes his team, consults others, and doesn't go off half-cocked.

Yeah, I don't see how you can flatly state you'd just tear the thing up on day one. A more prudent promise would be that the agreement would be one of the first things you and your team examine on day one, getting into the details of it and making sure you fully understand what is expected and what is stipulated and then be ready to make any necessary changes that you identify as important.

[AUTUmike 79]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

[AURaptor 1,122]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

Jeb was trailing Gov Walker in the latest poll.

[homersapien 11,357]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

Jeb was trailing Gov Walker in the latest poll.

Last poll I saw they were both trailing Trump.

[alexava 6,973]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

Jeb was trailing Gov Walker in the latest poll.

Last poll I saw they were both trailing Trump.

hell ted Nugent should enter the darn race. He would be a lock with the antics these voters seem to fancy.

[homersapien 11,357]

Finally ! A real American !!!

YES !!

And "we must protect our precious bodily fluids" crowd chimes in.

[AUTUmike 79]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

Jeb was trailing Gov Walker in the latest poll.

Last poll I saw they were both trailing Trump.

Yep, last poll I saw Trump was at 24%, Walker at 13%, and Jeb at 12%. I expect Walker and Jeb to separate themselves once some of the crazier in the pack are left behind.

[JoeBags7277 734]

You don't see how this could help him? Check out which party's nomination he's seeking.

[JoeBags7277 734]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

Jeb was trailing Gov Walker in the latest poll.

Last poll I saw they were both trailing Trump.

hell ted Nugent should enter the darn race. He would be a lock with the antics these voters seem to fancy.

I'm ashamed to admit it, but a relative of mine wants Trump to tap the 'Nuge as his running mate.

[alexava 6,973]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

Jeb was trailing Gov Walker in the latest poll.

Last poll I saw they were both trailing Trump.

hell ted Nugent should enter the darn race. He would be a lock with the antics these voters seem to fancy.

I'm ashamed to admit it, but a relative of mine wants Trump to tap the 'Nuge as his running mate.

i have some dipshit relatives too.

[quietfan 233]

And that is why Jeb is likely going to win the nomination--because he can capture the votes of moderate conservatives rather than just catering his message to the radicals.

Jeb was trailing Gov Walker in the latest poll.

Last poll I saw they were both trailing Trump.

hell ted Nugent should enter the darn race. He would be a lock with the antics these voters seem to fancy.

I'm ashamed to admit it, but a relative of mine wants Trump to tap the 'Nuge as his running mate.

Well, the guy who wrote these lyrics:

http://www.metrolyri...ted-nugent.html

Well I don't care if you're just thirteen

You look too good to be true

I just know that you're probably clean

There's one lil' thing I got do to you

It's quite all right I asked your mama

Wait a minute officer

Don't put those handcuffs on me

Put them on her and I'll share her with you

...does fit in quite well with the party of Josh Dugger and Mike Huckabee (who admitted he'd lie about his gender to invade the privacy of young girls and commit voyeurism or possibly worse):

http://www.advocate....-trans-teenager

Huckabee told the audience that he wished someone would have told him in high school that he could access the girls' locker room by saying he "felt like a woman."

"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in P.E.," Huckabee said. "I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.' You’re laughing because it sounds so ridiculous, doesn’t it?"

[TitanTiger 20,472]

...does fit in quite well with the party of Josh Dugger and Mike Huckabee (who admitted he'd lie about his gender to invade the privacy of young girls and commit voyeurism or possibly worse):

http://www.advocate....-trans-teenager

Huckabee told the audience that he wished someone would have told him in high school that he could access the girls' locker room by saying he "felt like a woman."

"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in P.E.," Huckabee said. "I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.' You’re laughing because it sounds so ridiculous, doesn’t it?"

I think you're pushing that a bit far on the Huckabee anecdote. Do you really think he isn't describing the fantasy of a high percentage of teenage boys - being able to walk into the girls' locker room and see naked girls?

I'm not saying it's ok to do that, but I am saying that such thoughts cross the minds of boys in the throes of puberty with startling regularity and they eventually grow out of it. They don't grow up to be rapey Peeping Toms.

[quietfan 233]

...does fit in quite well with the party of Josh Dugger and Mike Huckabee (who admitted he'd lie about his gender to invade the privacy of young girls and commit voyeurism or possibly worse):

http://www.advocate....-trans-teenager

Huckabee told the audience that he wished someone would have told him in high school that he could access the girls' locker room by saying he "felt like a woman."

"Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in P.E.," Huckabee said. "I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.' You’re laughing because it sounds so ridiculous, doesn’t it?"

I think you're pushing that a bit far on the Huckabee anecdote. Do you really think he isn't describing the fantasy of a high percentage of teenage boys - being able to walk into the girls' locker room and see naked girls?

I'm not saying it's ok to do that, but I am saying that such thoughts cross the minds of boys in the throes of puberty with startling regularity and they eventually grow out of it. They don't grow up to be rapey Peeping Toms.

I agree that most adolescent heterosexual boys probably have thought about it. But I don't know many adult presidential candidates who'd say "I’m pretty sure that I would have [done it]"

Should I instead applaud Huckabee for his honesty?? :-\

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I agree that most adolescent heterosexual boys probably have thought about it. But I don't know many adult presidential candidates who'd say "I’m pretty sure that I would have [done it]"

Should I instead applaud Huckabee for his honesty?? :-\

I think Huckabee admitting that his teenage self would have done something is not something that registers on the creepy meter to me.

[alexava 6,973]

I agree that most adolescent heterosexual boys probably have thought about it. But I don't know many adult presidential candidates who'd say "I’m pretty sure that I would have [done it]"

Should I instead applaud Huckabee for his honesty?? :-\/>

I think Huckabee admitting that his teenage self would have done something is not something that registers on the creepy meter to me.

maybe not the creepy meter. The foot in the mouth does apply. Just not something to say in his position.

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

Back to the OP: Walker is correct. The next president may have to take "aggressive action" on Day 1 -- it's entirely prudent & rational to face up to that reality. As for consulting allies before taking action ... perhaps it's better if all the candidates regardless of party face up to this reality.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/saudi-prince-even-after-deal-military-action-against-iran-still-table-or-without-us#.qylasn:0IpW

[homersapien 11,357]

Back to the OP: Walker is correct. The next president may have to take "aggressive action" on Day 1 -- it's entirely prudent & rational to face up to that reality. As for consulting allies before taking action ... perhaps it's better if all the candidates regardless of party face up to this reality.

http://www.mrctv.org...us#.qylasn:0IpW

Only as a response if we are attacked. Any newly elected president who would initiate such an option on his first day in office is a complete fool.

[WarTim 3,456]

Back to the OP: Walker is correct. The next president may have to take "aggressive action" on Day 1 -- it's entirely prudent & rational to face up to that reality. As for consulting allies before taking action ... perhaps it's better if all the candidates regardless of party face up to this reality.

http://www.mrctv.org...us#.qylasn:0IpW

Only as a response if we are attacked. Any newly elected president who would initiate such an option on his first day in office is a complete fool.

Much like the current complete fool...

[AUTUmike 79]

Back to the OP: Walker is correct. The next president may have to take "aggressive action" on Day 1 -- it's entirely prudent & rational to face up to that reality. As for consulting allies before taking action ... perhaps it's better if all the candidates regardless of party face up to this reality.

http://www.mrctv.org...us#.qylasn:0IpW

Only as a response if we are attacked. Any newly elected president who would initiate such an option on his first day in office is a complete fool.

Much like the current complete fool...

Yet another insightful post from Timmy...

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

Back to the OP: Walker is correct. The next president may have to take "aggressive action" on Day 1 -- it's entirely prudent & rational to face up to that reality. As for consulting allies before taking action ... perhaps it's better if all the candidates regardless of party face up to this reality.

http://www.mrctv.org...us#.qylasn:0IpW

Only as a response if we are attacked. Any newly elected president who would initiate such an option on his first day in office is a complete fool.

How about facing up to the reality that our allies in the region (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia) may have already decided that if war is inevitable, a conventional war is preferable to a nuclear war? Would/Should the US sit on the sidelines? I have my doubts about Obama as C-in-C if such a situation would happen before the next inauguration. So, the possibility of the US acting on Day 1 of the next administration isn't all that far fetched.

[quietfan 233]

Back to the OP: Walker is correct. The next president may have to take "aggressive action" on Day 1 -- it's entirely prudent & rational to face up to that reality. As for consulting allies before taking action ... perhaps it's better if all the candidates regardless of party face up to this reality.

http://www.mrctv.org...us#.qylasn:0IpW

Only as a response if we are attacked. Any newly elected president who would initiate such an option on his first day in office is a complete fool.

How about facing up to the reality that our allies in the region (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia) may have already decided that if war is inevitable, a conventional war is preferable to a nuclear war? Would/Should the US sit on the sidelines? I have my doubts about Obama as C-in-C if such a situation would happen before the next inauguration. So, the possibility of the US acting on Day 1 of the next administration isn't all that far fetched.

I can't see Saudi Arabia and Israel cooperating very deeply or long, even in the face of Shia Iran. But as for whether the U.S. should sit on the sidelines in any Middle Eastern war, or which side we should take if not, I don't believe we can make those kind of decisions until we see what unfolds, who is the aggressor, what is at stake, etc. I'm certainly not going to give Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, or anyone else carte blanch and say "We'll support you no matter what! Do anything you like, morality and international law be damned, the U.S. military supports your actions!"

As for the opinion of the Saudi family members, from your own link:

Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two leading players in the Sunni/Shia divide and are competing for leadership of the Muslim world. The Sunni Islam Saudi Arabian monarchy fears that the Shia Islam Iranians will employ terrorists in an attempt topple the monarchy and the ruling House of Saud.

Not to mention, as I mentioned in another thread, Saudi Arabia would be perfectly happy for all sanctions to stay in place on Iran, nukes or not, if it gave the Saudi's a competitive edge in the oil market. I therefore find it hard to consider the opinion of the Saudi government or its royal family necessarily sound, objective, or in the best interest of the U.S.

In fact, while I certainly prefer working with Israel and Saudi Arabia as allies to the barbarity of Islamo-fascist terrorism, I would never bet a penny on either government putting U.S. interests (or the world community's) above their own.