Other Than Clinton, Crawford Says Democrats Blew Debate Question On National Security

[SaveElmer]

Given the underlying fear of terrorist threats, it was not surprising that a question about responding to more attacks produced the most telling moment of last week’s Democratic debate in South Carolina. Moderator Brian Williams of NBC News put forward a chilling hypothetical: “If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?”

Most candidates punted, ignoring the military thrust of Williams’ haunting question. With a lone exception, their mushy answers stood in stark contrast to how most Republican presidential aspirants will probably answer a similar question, which they’re sure to get at the debate at the Reagan Presidential Library this week.

Amazingly, only Hillary Rodham Clinton showed the presence of mind to immediately say that, first and foremost, she would track down the perpetrators. “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate,” the New York senator said. “If we are attacked and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that . . . gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.”

...

Give Obama credit for at least belatedly realizing that only Clinton had directly answered in a way that foreclosed the familiar Republican portrayal of Democrats as wimps. He returned to the topic later on, in response to another question, saying that sometimes a military response is called for.

Sure, it is probably true that most Americans are weary and skeptical of Bush’s belligerent and provocative language about “the war on terror.” That was the defense many Democrats offered after the debate for the largely tepid response to Williams’ hypothetical. But it will not take much to remind Americans that the scenario of two U.S. cities under attack is not far-fetched.

...

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqw/weeklyreport110-000002500095.html

[Alamom]

1. Thanks, great article. eom

[wyldwolf]

2. yeah - I pretty much agree... and one more observation about Crawford...

... he sounds remarkably like Don Knotts.

[SaveElmer]

3. I think Richardson chimed in later...

With a forceful response...he simply wasn't asked the first time...which Crawford should have mentioned...

Hey...and you can't go wrong with sounding like Don Knotts...he was an acting God...

Barney Fife, Incredible Mr. Limpett...classics all!!!

[KingofNewOrleans]

4. So, the answer Crawford was looking for was

"You've got to nip it the bud, Andy. Nip it...in...the...bud"

[mtnsnake]

5. But if all world leaders had the mindset of Kucinich, there wouldnt be the need for that question

because diplomacy would prevail. Instead, we live in a world where armed countries just can't resist playing with their toys of war and where militant extremist religious leaders will go to no end to aggravate the situation.

This "whoever answered the question on national security the best" is only a game of showmanship and politics.

Instead of trying to figure out who has the best plan to counter terrorist attacks, we should be trying to figure out how to avoid ever having a terrorist attack again. One way to start would be for world leaders to get together to try and figure out their differences instead of reaching in the weapons arsenal and blowing each other to shreds.

Personally, I thought that question was in poor taste...to paint a picture in peoples heads of two more American cities getting attacked by terrorists. At the worst, all it did was plant the seeds for further terrorist attacks, and at the least it prayed upon fear and scare tactics resulting from it. It's like we've been so desensitized to mass killing that we can ask politicians in a "debate" questions which speculate on more attacks by terrorists in a lame attempt that really proves nothing for Democrats but only plays right into the hands of warmongering Republicans.

[Hart2008]

6. This is how we got stuck in Iraq!

"only Clinton had directly answered in a way that foreclosed the familiar Republican portrayal of Democrats as wimps."
:rofl:

As Gary Hart points out, the party has lacked a consistent foreign policy in recent years. When the party cannot articulate what our foreign policy is, we get stuck reacting to events trying to show how tough we are, and cease to think rationally or responsibly. The IWR is a salient example of this failure of leadership in the party.

Of course we should retaliate if we know a nation-state assisted the terrorists, but the harder issue is how to adjust our national defense policy to counter terrorists when a nation-state does not assist the terrorists. (See Hart's last book "The Shield and the Cloak:he Security of the Commons")

Hillary doesn't have a plan for this, and Hart takes her to task by name in his next book, which is due out soon.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008!:kick:

[SaveElmer]

9. Did you watch the debate...

Or even listen to Hillary's answer? Apparently not!

"Of course we should retaliate if we know a nation-state assisted the terrorists,"

Which is exactly what she said...I suggest you go back and watch it again...

[Hart2008]

10. But that is not a complete answer. What if it wasn't a nation-state? No answer to that. n/t

[wyldwolf]

11. sure it was

The complete answer was:

"I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate... If we are attacked and we can determine who was behind that attack and if there were nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond."

This answer covers both possibilities - rogue terrorists and those sponsored by nation states.

[Hart2008]

12. No, the terrorist threat does not come from nation-states

A whole lot of "if's" in that answer, but it does not address how to transform our military and intelligence community to fight rogue terrorists. If Hillary had read the Hart/Rudman Commission report, she would know this is the chief threat to our nation's security, not nation-states. All she gave was a retaliation answer. Perhaps this explains her blunder on the IWR vote?

Sorry, but I am not impressed. She still doesn't get the war on terrorism, and never did.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com

:kick: HART 2008!:kick:

[wyldwolf]

13. name one terrorist organization that isn't/wasn't sponsored by a nation?

[Hart2008]

15. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

How are you defining "terrorist organization"?
Who sponsors the Chechens?
Who sponsored the IRA?
Who sponsored the unibomber?
Who sponsors Al-Queda now?

Terrorists don't need the support of a nation-state to launch an attack, and we don't always know who is responsible. Subgroups from one organization can start a new organization or meld in with another. By nature terrorism is amorphous, hence the need for better intelligence.

Sure terrorists would prefer to get assistance from a nation state, but if the Russian mafia sells a tactical nuke to terrorists, should we retaliate against Russia?

I want to hear you answer that question smart guy!

If the Russian mafia sells a tactical nuke to terrorists, should we retaliate against Russia?


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[wyldwolf]

18. When was the last time we had a tussle with Chechens, the IRA, and the Unibomber? LOL!

[Hart2008]

21. If the Russian mafia sells a tactical nuke to terrorists, should we retaliate against Russia?

I hear crickets.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[wyldwolf]

23. if the Russian mafia was given the nuke by the Russian government, yes

[Hart2008]

26. But what if it wasn't given? What if the nuke was stolen from some other country?

And how could you possibly prove it at a radioactive ground zero?

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[wyldwolf]

27. but what if my oreo cookie breaks off into my milk tonight?

Hillary said, "IF we can determine who was behind that attack."

[Hart2008]

29. If terrorists explode a nuke in a US city, you can eat all the oreo's you want...

but thousands will die, and you won't care.

Thank you for your childish answer. It reveals you.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[wyldwolf]

30. and if that happens, I hope my president finds out who is responsible and kills them and...

...all who aided in the attack.

[Hart2008]

31. I would prefer a President who can prevent the attack from occuring.

Enjoy your oreo's.

[wyldwolf]

32. me, too. But that wasn't the question asked of the candidates.

[Hart2008]

33. Hillary gave yesterday's answer to tomorrow's problem. It explains her IWR vote.

Find a convenient scapegoat and start a war based on contrived intelligence.

[SaveElmer]

14. Oh ok...

You mean you are criticizing her for not laying out an entire new foreign policy paradigm in the space of 30 seconds...

Man how lame is she :sarcasm:

Fact is, the context of the question was 9/11 as everyone understood...and there was a state sponsor...namely Afghanistan..her answer was spot on...

The first reaction of any President should be self defense...plain and simple.

[Hart2008]

16. No the context of the question was not 9-11. This is post 9-11.

There may not be a state sponsor. So the answer was incomplete, for sure.

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[SaveElmer]

19. Ridiculous...

The context for every American is 9/11...

Another classic example of Hillary opponents framing their answers in such a way to put it out of reach...she gave the most succinct and accurate answer of all the candidates...

The fact that she was very careful to note that retaliation against a state would only occur if there evidence that state was involved indicates she understands the complexity of the terrorist problem...

However, voters are going to be looking for a President whose first thought is to defend the country...

[Hart2008]

22. This is post 9-11. Avoid yesterday's thinking and deal with the present. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

7. If I were a Repo, I'd vote for Hillary. n/t

[loyalsister]

8. lol

The most fearful of stereotyping answered the question the best? Bummer.
She seems to be pulling out the strength of estrogen in all the wrong places.

[jillan]

17. Well Crawford is entitled to his opinion

that's what he is paid to do.
That's why msnbc loves him. He loves Hillary. And so do they.

I could post several articles about journalists that thought Biden nailed it.
Obama has had his praise.
Richardson.

And so the spin goes on and on and on....and will keep on going until Nov 2008.

[Forkboy]

20. It wasn't really what i wanted to hear but I can how her answer played as good,or better

than the others.She made a strong statement and the others tripped over themselves trying to match it.It was ugly all around to me.

[illinoisprogressive]

24. Crawford is a bought and paid for Clintonista. Way biased

[SaveElmer]

25. You have any proof of this....

or is the proof that he wrote something positive about Hillary?

[wyldwolf]

28. apparently so is KOS, Mydd, and others...