"GIULIANI: Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table.
And during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don't seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War. Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They're a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists.
And we just saw it just last week in New York, an attempt by Islamist terrorists to attack JFK airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix. "
Digby quotes Matt Yglesias:
"To me, the takeaway message of watching the Republicans debate is that Democrats need to realize that in 2008 they'll be matching up against a campaign of audacious -- almost awe-inspiringly so -- lies, and they need to be prepared to aggressively swat them down."
"Looking at what these bloodthirsty id ticklers are selling, I have to say that I think we ware going to look back at the swift-boaters with a sort of warm and fuzzy nostalgia. These guys are making George W. Bush look positively subtle. They aren't even trying to present themselves as sane, much less "compassionate." There are no paeans to freedom and democracy and with the exception of Brownback and Huckabee, they aren't even pushing zygote worship very much. It's pure lizard brain."
I agree, with a few exceptions (McCain*, Huckabee, and of course Ron Paul.) They are saying things that just aren't so. And I think the only thing we can do (we random citizens, as opposed to strategists for the Democrats) is to repeat, over and over again: Do they believe these falsehoods? Then they are not qualified to be President. Do they not? Then they are acting with utter contempt for the voters. There is no third alternative that makes this sort of statement OK.
* I mean: I think McCain's views on Iraq are bizarre, and that they seem to presuppose the availability of a lot of troops that just aren't there. But at various points he does seem to acknowledge that he is operating in the real world, in which actions have consequences, torture is not just an expression of toughness, it is not possible to up and deport twelve million people, and so forth. I completely disagree with him on all sorts of issues, but there is a huge and important difference between disagreeing with someone and thinking that that person has entered a realm of pure fantasy, in which Iran has nuclear weapons, Saddam never let the inspectors in, we had to invade Iraq as a part of the war on terror, not to mention Tancredo's apparent desire to encapsulate the US in an impenetrable plexiglass dome through which no living thing can enter.