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

[still_one]

Walker And Bush Clash Over When To Go After Iran -- Day One Or Two

WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) 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 (R), 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.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-iran-deal_55acfd69e4b0d2ded39f57c2

[YoungDemCA]

1. B-b-but I thought that it doesn't matter which party has the White House?!

[still_one]

2. kind of sad you have to tell people your comment is sarcasm. Yup, if people think things are bad

now, it isn't just the Supreme Court we need to be concerned about.

[randys1]

26. No difference, at all. Really...None, nada. Well, I mean some difference, sure... but not

anything to worry about..

Unless you are a Woman or a Black person or a


wait

or a
human being

Alive and breathing, yeah, that's it.

If you are alive and breathing, then it will make a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, actually

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. This will not happen, since Walker will never be President. NEVER. n/t

[still_one]

4. Not sure about that Peggy. He is leading in Iowa, and has Koch brother's money behind him

Though without Congress he probably would have a difficult time doing it legally, if he was president, the IWR was proof that congress could very easily rubber stamp things

[freshwest]

22. He's called their dark horse candidate. And every GOP committed to war. Koch wants MIC$s. n/t

[still_one]

32. You are right about the GOP committed to war, but I am not so sure if he is the long shot

[YoungDemCA]

5. I'm sure many people said the same thing about Reagan in the 1970s

"How could such a smarmy, dumb, extreme right-wing actor and corporate mouthpiece ever be nominated....let alone elected?"

[etherealtruth]

6. Or "W" .... how could an obvious dolt draft dodger .... ?

Yet he served two terms.

[freshwest]

24. Without a war going on, he'd've been a one-termer. n/t

[etherealtruth]

25. Yeah, but Walker would make sure he received similar "benefit"

[freshwest]

31. They're not even hiding it anymore. GWB at least promised he wouldn't. I think it wasn't his idea.

He just had to sell it. And he did, with a complicit MSM.

[0rganism]

7. you might want to re-think that

1. Walker will have full backing from the Koch bros reserves as their favorite anti-tax union-buster
2. Walker has won 3 elections in 4 years in what is now swing state Wisconsin - he knows how to win in mixed territory, and apparently how to push public opinion in his favor.

Really it doesn't matter too much who the GOP nominates; their eventual nominee willl get the benefit of glowing endorsements from Fox and AM hate radio, lots of dirty Koch money, and vocal support from cultural conservatives everywhere. Walker just makes it easy for them.

It will be close.

[Fawke Em]

11. Thom Hartmann believes - and I agree with him - that Trump is only in the race

as a representative of the Billionaire's Club set loose to take Jeb! out so that the Koch Brothers and their ilk can install Walker to the presidential throne.

Don't "misunderestimate" the power of money.

That's why I'm voting for Bernie. I'll vote for Clinton should she be the nominee, but I'd rather have a "people's" candidate over the corporation's choice. However, she's still better than anything on the other side. At least she's liberal on social issues.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Why is Jeb anathema to the Koch billionnaires? n/t

[Fawke Em]

19. Bush name?

I don't know. I just think they prefer Walker. If you think about it, Walker is a helluva lot more dumb than Bush and, therefore, more easily controlled. That's just my guess.

[Go Vols]

20. +1

[hifiguy]

23. They already own Snotty, lock, stock and barrel,

and he has proved adept at clicking his heels, saluting, and enacting the Koch agenda, hell or high water. He's a perfectly known quantity for them.

[Fawke Em]

33. That, too. eom

[randys1]

27. And remember, the Democrat has to get 5% more of the vote to win to overcome

the suppression and cheating

[Fawke Em]

34. Yes - we have to flood them at the polls. eom

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. In time for the 5:00 news?

Schwartzennegger would do it by noon. Beat that!

[still_one]

10. I suspect they would need to take the oath of office first, but I may be wrong on that

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Hiding behind technicalities.

He needs to be a real man and promise to do it as soon as he's nominated.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Walker is a wanker, always has been, always will be, no doubt

there will be some backlash from the WAPT crowd on this, but I will risk the consequences.


Thanks for the thread, still_one.

[KamaAina]

13. Has anyone ever seen Snotty Scotty and McLoser in the same place at the same time?

[City Lights]

16. Everyone who votes for this putz should get ready to ship out. nt

[Gothmog]

17. Walker is a war monger

[CajunBlazer]

18. Who would vote for?

Let's hypothetically say that the Republicans nominate Walker - and don't tell me it can't happen because the Republicans have done some strange things in the past - who would you vote for?

If your are a Hillary Clinton supporter Bernie Sanders or Scott Walker?

If your are a Bernie Sanders supporter: Hillary Clinton or Scott Walker?

[freshwest]

30. Voting for the Demoratic nominee, but for the first time I plan to skip the primaries.

Just too disgusted at the hate. And I do believe it'll be Walker. He's closest to the Koches. But all of them, Perry, Cruz, Rand, Christie and the rest, have met with the Koch brothers and they have their marching orders. This is not a secret. They have carried out their demands in each state.

They want a permanent state of war to finish the transformation of this country into something people cannot begin to comprehend happening. It'll be past fascism, it'll be a feudal theocracy, with strong man rule in the regions.



We are galloping into the world they want us to live in. Many will not survive, which suits them. Poverty enriches them.

Death of the poor and of the scapegoats please them. Being at war continually will enshrine their rule. The war can be abroad orat home. It will be a dystopia worse than what most people have ever seen or imagine.

And time is not on our side.

[hifiguy]

21. The lunatics are running the asylum over in reichwing fantasyland.

They should all be locked up and forcibly medicated with horse tranquilizer. On an hourly basis..

[Initech]

28. And where are we going to get the money that we need for this war?

If you recall Bush and Cheney threw unchecked trillions at the MIC like a drunk college student at the strip club on his 21st birthday. And they bankrupted our country in the process. So where's the money going to come from?

[Person 2713]

36. Social security Medicare still some left for the MIC they are thinking or no social programs at all

would suit these folks fine. More desperadoes to fill the military just to keep their family afloat as a side benefit

[Martin Eden]

29. Competition for most eager warmonger

Sane people won't vote for this bozo.

Therefore, I'm worried.

[Person 2713]

35. Reagan Iran remake feel

Our democratic candidate needs to know voters do not want war !

[still_one]

37. You may have meant bush 1 or 2. Reagan was selling arms to Iran, Iran/Contra, with the hopes that

Iran and Iraq would continue their war, and kill as many people as possible, but it was O.K. because North told us that "god was on our side".

A perfect example where the U.S. could have tried to negotiate a peaceful settlement, but decided that war profit was more important