Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-14-08 08:15 PM
Original message
"I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate."
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.



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 FreedomTM 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?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC