"I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate."

[Strelnikov_]

South Carolina Democratic debate
April 26, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18352397/

Williams: Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

Obama: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

Williams: We are out of time, thank you.

. . .

Senator Clinton, same question.

Clinton: Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.

I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden. So let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.

Williams: Out of time, Senator. Thank you.


Post-Democratic Candidates' Debate Coverage

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18351722/

Fineman: Authentic victory for Hillary.

Barack Obama, in some respects, was off his game. He was off his rhythm. He is good in one on one. His thought pauses...

Matthews: Was he frustrated by the fact there were eight people sharing 90 minutes?

Fineman: Yes, exactly. He’s not used to that.

And he also blew the question initially on, what would you do if two American cities were bombed and we knew it was al Qaeda? What happened was, he got that question first. It was from out of the blue. He got it. He didn’t answer it forcefully enough, in terms of retaliation and military force. Neither did John Edwards.

The people in the Clinton spin room couldn’t they were hoping and praying that Hillary would also get that question. And she did. And she used the word retaliate. And Edwards excuse me and Obama spent the rest of the debate making up for what he knew was an inadequate inadequate answer on the question of military force.


+++++++++++++

So, if SPECTRE . . oops . . Al Queda attacks two US cities, per the MSNBC talking heads the CIC's first action should be to retaliate.

Not secure the situation, ensure adequate emergency relief measures are being taken, ensure that a strong defensive posture has been assumed, not open dialog with allies as to how best to work together to address any future threats.

Nope. To show you would be a tough CIC, the MSNBC talking heads say the correct answer is retaliate.

Flush the bombers, load em up with JDAMS of Freedom^TM and dammit just bomb somebody already. No good targets to bomb where Blofeld .. oops .. Osama is hiding, well fuck it, bomb some other country nobody likes (preferably one with oil).

I mean, shit, this approach of bomb first, ask questions later has worked so well over the last seven years . . .


Hmm . . Is this one of those solutions we keep hearing about?

[rug]

1. Obama had the far better answer.

[Honeycombe8]

5. You're right. Obama doesn't get the credit he deserves for his good judgment. nt

[LSparkle]

2. I thought Obama got unfairly pummeled for that response

Of course, we need to make sure the intelligence is right first, rather than just punching somebody out before finding out if they were responsible. What's the use of having a woman in the White House when she feels like she has to be TWICE as testosterone-driven as the boys?

[gravity]

3. Obama is truly diplomatic

I don't know how well it will do with the public on debates on terrorism, but he is exactly what this country needs in dealing with our enemies.

I love the line:

"we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake."

He is using those same diplomatic tactics to win over the enemy at home, the republicans.

[Strelnikov_]

4. When I see posts spreading the meme that The (formerly) Inevitable is the peace candidate . .

[MediaBabe]

6. Talking is his best trait but a CinC needs to be a man of action.

Making sure we have the world behind us. What if they aren't Mr. Obama? What if after eight years of Bush they do not "feel they have a stake in our security?" What then? What if the UN Security Council decides to have meetings while our cities smolder? While you're making nice and carefully worrying about "alienat the world community ... bluster and bombast" the American people are looking for a CinC who is a capable man of action, not chatter.

The right will crucify him with this remark if he is the Democrat nominee the same way they have previously destroyed anyone who said that asking the world, or the UN, for permission to respond was the way to defend our country.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. all good points....Obama blew that one

[Strelnikov_]

9. Oh yes, very good. Thing is, they are all RIGHTWING talking points.

What if after eight years of Bush they do not "feel they have a stake in our security?" What then? What if the UN Security Council decides to have meetings while our cities smolder? While you're making nice and carefully worrying about "alienat (sic)the world community ... bluster and bombast" the American people are looking for a CinC who is a capable man of action, not chatter.

The right will crucify him with this remark if he is the Democrat nominee the same way they have previously destroyed anyone who said that asking the world, or the UN, for permission to respond was the way to defend our country.


Oh, yea, real good.

[Strelnikov_]

8. So you are on board with the 'bomb first, ask questions later' approach

to foreign policy.

Retaliate, eye for an eye, regardless if it will have any positive long term effect.

From what you are saying, it appears people should take The (formally) Inevitable's vote to attack Iraq as an indication of things to expect in her administration.

No 'bluster and bombast' there in the IWR vote, or 'making nice' with the world community, just some good old fashioned revenge killin' of Muslims.



Oh, by the way, that would be the 'Democratic' nominee.

[krkaufman]

10. Chuckle. The media's response to Obama's answer is even funnier today...

... given how Obama is continually lambasted for lacking detailed plans on just about everything. Obama laid-out a complex, thoughtful approach to responding; and Clinton effectively went with "bombs away!"

(And this is another good example of the total pass that the media has given Obama during the campaign, too. :))