One of the more annoying PuffingTons Hosters is Brent Budowsky. Mainly because he runs the party line (so the Democrats can never do wrong), but also because he carefully twists information to match his viewpoint. Over at OpEdNews.com, he’s running with a new piece calling out the Republican Presidential Candidates for wanting to “nuke Iran”. Here’s what he said:
The core problem for Republican presidential candidates is this: They are forced to continue to support the escalation of the war, while they are forced to appeal to a hard-core, right-wing base that is far out of touch with American opinion.
What do they do? They start talking about the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran.
Oh, Brent. They didn’t start any of that conversation. Let’s go to the NY Times transcript of the debate and see who started it:
MR. BLITZER: If it came down to a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
REP. HUNTER: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges. [CUT]
MR. GIULIANI: [CUT] 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.
Mr. GILMORE: [CUT] And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance.
MR. ROMNEY: You don’t take options off the table. [CUT]
Why, that sounds like Wolf Blitzer asking them to respond to a question! And every response was a perfectly reasonable course of action. But Brent makes it sound like everyone seeking the nomination is itching to drop the bomb on Iran.
Why don’t we just preface everything Brent says with, “Now here’s Brent to stretch and misrepresent what’s actually been said”?