(before I begin, let me say I think you’d make a fine Secretary of State for Obama’s administration

you wrote: “Given our astonishing intelligence failures, that’s a HELL HELL of an assumption to make!”

I don’t blame the war on Iraq on “intelligence failures.” The Administration already made up its mind that it was going to war REGARDLESS of what the intelligence said. the UN inspectors debunked all the WMD claims in Iraq, but we ignored it and went in any way.

Next, I said Kennedy was the last Democratic president that had any ___ because he stared down the Soviets. We all know the story of the Cuban Missle crisis. I got no beef with Castro. And we all know the Bay of Pigs was a disater! My point is that there ain’t no nukes pointing at us from Savannah, and Kennedy was bold enough to make sure that didn’t happen. He stood FIRM…eyeball to eyeball with Khrushchev…Khrushchev blinked.
(to clarify, that’s the model I’d like Obama to follow, when necessary).

“How do we retaliate against a country we’ve already invaded and losing to?”

Well, Al Queda is now in Iraq and we have a big mess. we should have never gone in there in the first, but we are stuck there I agree. In ADDITION to taking out their leadership (as today’s articles say we did), we should encourage “detente” with the Iranians to get us out of this mess — in much the same way Nixon ushered in a period of “detente” with the Chinese to help stabilize Southeast Asia when we left Vietnam. It’s a regional problem which deserves a regional solution, but that does NOT mean terrorists shouldn’t be hunted down and killed. that is all that i am saying…

“The assumption all of us are making is that we have good (reliable) intelligence to let us know who attacked us and where they are at.”

Given our astonishing intelligence failures, that’s a HELL HELL of an assumption to make!

I’m not sure I understand the reference to Kennedy? Are you referring to the —– to withstand the cuban missle crisis or initiate the Bay of Pigs. Whatever the case, Castro has outlived Kennedy and practically everyone in his administration and approaching 50 years in power, so who had the big —–? I’m sure that’s not a model that Obama wants to follow.

“— have the nerve to hit back, hard, in say in Pakistan, or Somalia, if we know terrorist forces are building there?”

Why didn’t you have Iraq on the list? Let’s expand the hypothetical, wouldn’t it be more interesting to speculate on what we would do if we traced the source of the attacks to Al Qaeda in Iraq. How do we retaliate against a country we’ve already invaded and losing to?

Look, you can retaliate against Pakistan, Somalia or any other weak Near East, Middle East or African Country that we can “shock and awe” with ease, but that will do NOTHING to eradicate the problem. If you truly believe that Al Qaeda and like networks can be defeated with conventional military response, I got a war on drugs for you to win too.

This is a job interview. I am not a damn reader.

I anticipate that if we were each members of Obama’s cabinet (say NSC, Secretaries of Defense, State etc.), there would be some pretty heated (and healthy) discussions in our cabinet meetings

For the record: no one here is suggesting that we fly off wily-nily on random bombing campaigns because we hear the voices of God. The assumption all of us are making is that we have good (reliable) intelligence to let us know who attacked us and where they are at.

Second, there is a difference between advocating robust military force to combat terrorism (which is where I stand) and the neoconservative position stating that military force should be used to promote democracy (which is why we are in Iraq). Since I’ve seen several incorrect references to Iraq here, it needs to be stressed that no one here, that I’m aware of, supported this Iraqi war BEFORE it started (that is an important point).

So where do we differ: What I do NOT support, are those kiss-and-peck tomahawk cruise missle strikes when Al Queda hit us continually under the prior administration. I mean why do we have to go back to Kennedy for the last time we could name a Democratic president that had any ________ (fill in the blank)

The only thing we got wrong in Afghanistan is that we took our eyes OFF Afghanistan. The military response was appropriate. It Seems we agree on that.

We all agree in coalition building. Yes, I would rather work with the Iranians to promote stability in the region as well as to fight Al Qeda (who are no friends to the Shiites in Iran). The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I had it my way, we’d be making more Nancy Pelosi trips to the Middle East to talk with the Syrians (as well as have an ongoing dialogue with the Iranians). I have always felt this way. (Separately, an Iran feeling less isolated from the rest of the world is less apt to kidnap british sailors or authorize the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers triggering that Lebanese fiasco in the first place).

So where’s the rub then? does Obama – after we’ve done all the intelligence assessments, after we build all the coalitions, after we’ve done all the “prework” — have the nerve to hit back, hard, in say in Pakistan, or Somalia, if we know terrorist forces are building there? If me wanting Obama to say yes to that question makes me a cowboy, then I’m a cowboy then…an urban one.

But as Sheryl Crow once sang:
“I got a feeling…
I’m not the only one”

I agree! I think Obama gave an intellectual response where most wanted a John Wayne ‘boot in the ass’ response. Hilllary Clilnton’s response made for a great sound bite for the evening news and follow-up press release, but it certainly wasn’t rooted in today’s reality. No one can dispute that legally and morally we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves against attack, but my follow-up question to Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson would have been “WHERE” ? Where do we retaliate against an enemy with no country? An enemy that has shown itself far more adept at hiding, resurfacing and morphing than our sophisticated intelligence and weaponry in finding and destroying them. Afghanistan was an easy target in that it had no official government and more importantly no military; furthermore, there was incontrovertible evidence (accumulated over several years) of Al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan. That was a once in a lifetime set of perfect circumstances where strong military force was an appropriate response to an Al Qaeda attack. However, as we have found in Iraq and Israel recently in Lebanon, a conventional military response to this seemingly invisible and amorphous enemy is no longer a tenable option–if the aim is really to dismantle their networks and not just a show of force.

Most middle east experts, not military experts who don’t seem to know a damn thing, say the only way to weed them out is to build alliances with our so-called enemies who can weed them out from within. I don’t know how the hell that’s going to happen if we allow Al Qaeda and other groups to bait us into attacking these countries.

The lesson Obama has learned is that the public, despite its anti-Bush rhetoric, wants a cowboy on defense. He has to fight his instincts and give the public the performance they want.

The other two gave knee-jerk reactions that can very easily land us back in the same situation we are in now, with an invasion based on false intelligence and lies. They did not expose any thought processes, only reactions, nor were their first responses to secure the safety of our citizens and infrastructures.

I vote for the one who shows signs of intelligent analysis and planning, rather than robotic reactions to stimulus.

According to their responses, If Hillary or Edwards were president when the Oklahoma bombing occurred, they would have incorrectly bombed Iran for it.

HILARIOUS.

Simply HILARIOUS!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH LMBAOOOO!!

that- and your proposed response- was priceless!!

Corporate Media Presstitute/Debate Moderator: “Senator Obama, let’s say that a city gets nuked while you’re prez and we all just KNOW it’s al-CIA-duh…err I mean al-Qeada (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). What…would you do??”

Senator Obama: First thing I would do is ask why (expletive) Osama (expletive) Bin Laden is still runnin’ around in (expletive) Pakistan or wherever the (expletive). Then I would strap a bomb to every last neocon and airdrop them from about 32,000 feet right on top of his damn cave. Problem solved!

(THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE)

“He hasn’t destroyed one, either.”

Except from: “Black Woman”, 1970, by Chester Higgins, Jr. (photos) and Harold McDougall.

Agreed…a “Jim Brown” response maybe?

Yo, SB! If you’re not using that tin-foil hat, toss it this way.

I agree Rick.

Which is why I’m glad this was done in April 2007, and NOT December 2007 going into the primaries, and DEFINITELY glad it didn’t happen in September 2008.

If he didn’t have an answer, he damn sure better have one by the next debate.

We have been sowing dragons teeth in that part of the world for more than 50 years now, and we are always amazed when they sprout up and bite us in the ass.

Oh and where is Bin Laden? Pakistan? Our ally has got him? Hmmmm,…interesting. Here’s a guy who was created by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s and was on the Company’s payroll until at least 1992. Then he shows up again right on time to get things rolling for the Neocons…they even had the nerve to write him into the script. Do a google search on “a catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. Yes, it’s real interesting.