Originally Posted by the article
"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges," he said. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table." Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore also left "all options are on the table" with regard to Iranian nuclear weapons. Said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "I wouldn't take any options off the table."
I dont think the article twisted the quotes I think you a few things.

1.
"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges,"
Key term "if there was no other way"

2.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table."
dosent advocate a nuke strike, he says "you cant rule out anything"

3.
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore also left "all options are on the table"
See 2.

4.
Said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "I wouldn't take any options off the table.
see 3.

In truth the article dosent claim they said anything else (I reread it afterall), it merely supposes this is the wrong course for a candidate to take. Okay, he's entitled to his views, Ill make the concession there.

So my point is thats its an option and it should be, it just shouldnt be the first option. Nukes exsist, we have over 5000 of them, and to not acknowledge them as an option is poor presidential form.

Quote Originally Posted by doc_bean
they're all in favor of an attack if iran even starts developping nuclear technology, which at this stage of their development can only be used for civilian purposes.
Well no Doc, there all in favor of the option, thats where I think Zak, the article, you and I are all getting entangled. Acknowleding you have an option and that its a viable one in your opinion dosent make it a given (in terms of the nuke option). In terms of striking Iran period should they continue towards weapons grade production (I concede they arent there yet).

I think these candidates accurately portray what a lot of americans think, myself included. Sure Iran is a threat to us mainly due to our policies, but they are a threat, at least those whose hands are on the levers of government are at this time and I for one would rather deal with it now diplomatically, but I dont want options taken off the table in the process, no matter how weighty they may be.