[Carry_Okie]

I loved every one of Hunter's answers except the last. He did not clearly explain and emphasize the premise for the inevitability of military action against the prospect of a nuclear Iran:

Russia would have delivered nukes by conventional and trackable means: missiles with radar signatures, planes with stars on the side, etc. Had Russia attacked, it would have been an obvious causus bellum with a clear enemy. It was unmistakable who to target by all accounts.

By contrast, by its actions, Iran has proven it will stoop to nuclear terrorism at the first opportunity, whence the terrorists could deny the origin of the weapon. How do you declare nuclear war against a country when you can't prove the origin of the attack? Heck, the terrorists could claim they got the weapon from Pakistan or off the Russian black market. What would we do about that?

So when Hunter, even after several minutes to think about it, started talking in a disjointed fashion about what weapons he would use, he fed the usual fear-mongers that he'd be a trigger-happy war monger.

Even better would have been if he had used the metaphor he was developing at the end of his piece earlier. He noted that Iran had released the hostages out of fear of Reagan, so his answer should have mentioned in the premise that the President SHOULD talk about the likelihood of actually making a first strike, a scary prospect for a prospective "end-of-the-world" jihadist. Let the enemy sweat over whether he really means, this time, or maybe next?

Hunter didn't take the ten seconds to explain clearly those underlying premises BEFORE talking about what military action he would take. To be President, he must teach the people WHY he plans to do what he does, else he won't have the support to carry through. If he is to learn to be an effective communicator, quickly imparting the real gravity of the situation is a skill he must acquire.

[CounterCounterCulture]

see post #1,738

[WalterSkinner]

..if you had listened to Hunter's comments and answers on this question during previous speeches and debates--you would know his position and have no doubt as to what his actions would be as CIC.

Try answering any question with someone trying to cut you off in mid-sentence.

WADR your critique is biased and just plain silly...

[Calpernia]

>>>He did not clearly explain and emphasize the premise for the inevitability of military action against the prospect of a nuclear Iran:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1889805/posts
Duncan Hunter Calls for Iran Strike Soon