If she can jump to retaliation without reasoning who are what we're retataliating against
"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 who 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 was behind that attack, and if there were 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."
The two big differences I saw between the answers = Obama mentioned the aftermath of the disaster, and spoke about engaging the international community for a united response.
Retaliate is the language of WAR. Afghanistan was retaliated upon and now is back to recruiting and war lords. Iraq was the next "retaliation" Retaliation has gotten us NOTHING in return. We're not safer, we're not stronger, we're not better. It's bullshit and anyone who needs to hear the word retaliate in order to feel safe is just about as smart as Bush or maybe Clinton in this case.
The APPEARANCE of being strong on security is a fucking illusion and another deceptive right wing frame that this country has bought into.
How about SMART on Security. Intelligence. Prevention. Did I mention Intelligence.
As for her being a senator on 9/11...that means crap to me. I live in New York. I know people who escaped the buildings that morning. I've freelanced in the WTC. I know what we lossed. My head still spins when I remember looking up at them.
And frankly I don't appreciate her using 9/11 to score points. We have Bush and the entire republican party to do that.
I was just pointing out that your claim that she wanted to retaliate without figuring out who to retaliate against was directly contradicted by the text of her statement.
I made no other comment, so I'm not sure why you're swearing at me.
You seem very passionate, and I don't disagree with you about the problem with talking about retaliation - it certainly is a silly and childish response to the perception of danger. But my comment was an effort to encourage you to not let your passion run ahead of the facts. There's enough wrong with what she did say that there's no need to claim she said something else.
I wasn't swearing at you. I'm just frustrated at the continued acceptance of the republican frames all the way down to our debates. Even our candidates seem to take the ridiculous security framings seriously. It's not you. It's me.
Let me point out that Brian Williams' question told the candidate that it WAS ALREADY KNOWN THAT AL QUEDA WAS THE CULPRIT.
So she responded to that, which did not seem to penetrate to Obama....Brian Williams had a question whose premise was that the intelligence was already known. That is one of the reasons why Obama's response seemed inadequate....the question set it up that there was no need to do intelligence.
Second the response she made was indeed just like going after Al Queda in Afghanistan.
Bingo, debcoop!
And that is why the question was so incredibly dishonest. If we knew enough to know that Al-Qaeda was unquestionably behind the attack, at the time that the attack took place, then unless Guliani is President, why didn't we take action to prevent the attacks?
That's not the real world, that's an episode of 24.
I agree it was a dishonest question. a set up coming from a certain viewpoint....but of course if there was a terrorist attack...my presumption would be twofold...Al Queda or homegrown like Timothy McVeigh.
... whether the train bombing were false jihadists or ETA. I can't think of a single successful terrorist strike in the past decade where it was instantly known who was behind it ... even if some people knowing that kind of thing in the 24 hours before some terrorist strike is set to occur may be the fodder for a fantasy television series.
