Who would you pick

[Truthiness Inspector]

If America was faced with imminent attack, Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden? Who would best stand toe-to-toe and blow the enemy away without apologies (but understandably with mistakes in retrospect)?

Which men would stand up for this country and which men would waffle around?

What do you think Obama would do tomorrow or two months from now in the face of another massive attack and would his response satisfy you, why or why not?

[Truthiness Inspector]

1. It would be meaningful if voters bothered to answer

Instead of just voting it down.

Can you add to the topic?

[Quantess]

5. You have to admit it's a pretty stupid question, overall.

"Who would best stand toe-to-toe and blow the enemy away without apologies (but understandably with mistakes in retrospect)?"

Hmm, let's see....is this a push poll suggesting we vote for the former idiot-in-chief who choked on a pretzel?

I recommended this thread because it's sort of amusing and I didn't feel it deserved a negative integer.

[napi21]

2. I would chose Obama/Biden because I believe they would go after the actual perps

and not some other people or country just to satisfy some prior grievance they had. The same as BC did when the WTC was bombed the first time!

[Truthiness Inspector]

3. "not some other people or country"

So, who would/should Obama go after?

[Historic NY]

4. 'ditto'

[Hosnon]

6. Are you looking for honest debate on this topic?

'Cause that isn't very likely.

But I'll do my best to help make this an actual discussion forum.

After 9/11, I often said that I was glad that Bush won because I thought he would be tougher. Regardless of from wherever that idiotic belief came, Bush certainly showed me why Gore would have been better: I don't think Gore would have sacrificed our principles as much as Bush did for the sake of our safety.

Now, regarding your questions: I think Cheney, regardless of who was at the top of the ticket, would "best stand toe-to-toe and blow the enemy away without apologies". He is unashamed in his belief that safety is paramount. But, he would not "stand up for this country" in doing so. The overall best performer would be Obama/Biden because they would acknowledge the multiple things they must protect. To be sure, our safety might suffer a bit more than it would under Cheney but that may simply be a result of safety and liberty being somewhat of a zero-sum game. But in the end, it is justified to safeguard both at the expense of both.

If Obama knew that an attack was planned for, say, December 25th in NYC, I think he would mobilize the entire law enforcement and military infrastructures of the U.S. (and the world) to stop it. But he would do so knowing that he is bound to protect more than just our safety.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. How "understandable" are these mistakes?

Because equating Iraq with Al Qaeda was not a "mistake".

[boppers]

8. "imminent attack"

Ooohh, hypothetical, fictional, scenarios!

We should totally have elected a fictional president for that.

Maybe Sutherland as Jack Bauer, or Harrison Ford as James Marshall.