Read it, and tell me who comes to mind…
“Let’s be clear about the threat we face now…a nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not-must not-permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons…[We] cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran-that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Well, who was it – John McCain?
How about this:
“The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge.”
Quoted from the Weekly Standard?
Games up, it’s the Democratic front-runner! But you already knew that from the thread title. So here’s the full article from The American Conservative:
I’ve got a suggestion: Why don’t the neocons on the right agree to vote for a Democrat standard-bearer this time around, and leave the sensible people on the right and left to vote for Ron Paul? Look at it this way: it will save you the trouble of having to pick-and-choose the best neocon from among 7-8 potential candidates on the Republican platform (barring the one true conservative).
Ron Paul is already recieving a disproportionate amount of attention from left-wing voters. It is not implausible to imagine the scenario happening in reverse on the other side of the spectrum.
Jeffy, HH, Zapman, be sure to let us know when you’ve registered to vote as Democrats. This could add an entirely new element of absurdity to our delightful forum.