April 30, 2007

Democratic Debate Showed Dem Candidates Unprepared to Deal with Another 9-11

In last week's debate, Democrats inadvertently revealed just how unprepared they are to deal with another 9-11. They were asked how they'd respond to it, and amazingly, appeared not to have even considered the subject.

MODERATOR: 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 was so unprepared that, when asked how he would change the U.S. military stance overseas, he has to tapdance and answer a question he wasn't asked:

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 premise of the question as stated by the moderator was we already knew "beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida." Obama is still tapdancing - he has put no thought into this question at all:

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.

He keeps tapdancing:

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.

"We're not going to defeat terrorists on our own." So he finally gets around to something like a response, and his response is to preemptively give up and say that the U.S. can't win on its own, without help. He has no plan for using the military to destroy the capability of our attackers to repeat the attack. This is just encouragement to the terrorists. It's pathetic.

Edwards was then asked the same question:

MODERATOR: Senator, thank you.

Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneous attacks tonight, we knew it was Al Qaida, what would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?

Edwards does the same tapdance - ignoring the premise that we knew it was Al Qaida.

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.

And he's going to 'hold someone responsible'! That doesn't imply a military response.

The second thing I would do -- and, of course, some of these have been mentioned already -- is find out how did this happen without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage; how did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built?

That's the second big action Edwards would take in response to another 9-11: he'd look for someone in the CIA to blame it on! Pathetic.

You know, did the weapons that created these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here, and how do we stop it from happening again?

That's the third big action Edwards would take - trying to prevent the attack from happening the exact same way next time. In other words, he'd fight the game on defense other than offense. He's inviting the terrorists to try and try again to do more 9-11's to us, saying that in response he won't take the fight to them.

I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.

But we have more tools available to us than bombs.

There - he actually said it - he won't use bombs - he won't make a military response. He's throwing the door wide open to the terrorists, telling them to attack us all they want, and all Edwards will do in return is attack the CIA. Edwards is telling them they have nothing to fear from attacking us.

And America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, the terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy. We need one and I will provide one as president.

Responding to another 9-11 by blaming the CIA is no strategy at all, long-term or short-term. 

Edwards is so concerned about these fence-sitters that he forswears using bombs on people who kill our citizens. Those fence-sitters would have no choice but to support those who attack us if they saw that someone like Edwards did nothing to destroy the capability of our attackers to repeat the attack.

Edward's position is pathetic - and would be dangerous to Americans.

Unlike Obama and Edwards, Clinton had at least thought about the subject:

MODERATOR: 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.

Like getting Bin Laden would take care of the whole thing - like it's a Hollywood movie where, once you capture the top guy, everything's all better. But at least Hillary said she supported GWB's actions in Afghanistan and supports using the military to attack nations that support terrorists.

Obama and Edwards had nothing but policies that would make it safer for terrorists to attempt another 9-11. They show how unsafe the country would be with leadership such as theirs.