|
is what kind of judgement do you have" 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.
+++++++++++++++++++ Sorry, but I have to disagree with Fineman and Tweety that "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate." is the best response. Personally, I don't think the bomb first, ask questions later approach is working. But, hey, thats just me. |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
