Out of the top four contenders for the Democratic nomination, there is only one whose first instinct, were we to suffer another attack, would not be to deploy our military.
In Thursday's debate, Brian Williams asked the following:
Senator, if America were attacked right now, how much of a pussy would you be?
Oh wait, it was worded slightly differently.
[I]f, 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?
We already experied Edwards' and Clinton's reaction to an Al Qaida attack in 2002 when they voted for the Iraq War. But it has been four years, so maybe they've learned...
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. [...] 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.
<div>Dangerous leaders! Good thing you swiftly voted to dispose of that Saddam! Who knows how dangerous the world could be...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>At least his answer wasn't as neo-con-esque as Senator Clinton's.</div>
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.
<div>Great, we'll explicitly seek a nation giving what Clinton deems "support or material aid" to the terrorists and "quickly respond". </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Senator Clinton, being that The United States gave aid and support to Bin Laden and the Mujahideen, why don't you go bomb yourself. </div>
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. [..]
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.
Senator Obama specifically assumes the attack was the result of a terrorist network, and at no point assumes there exists tangible enemies lying in nation states. And he is alone in suggesting a military action is not a forgone conclusion. Obama says "we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network."
It could be the case that American intelligence uncovers no viable military target. But not in Hillary or Edward's America. While their poll numbers demand a "swift" military response, Barack Obama once again exhibts real leadership.
In fairness, Edwards mentioned that "we have more tools available to us than bombs" and Clinton said "that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights." It's some calculated political parsing that allows them to promise and not promise a military action in the same breath. But make no mistake, both these candidates first reaction was to promise the Murkin people a military response.
I shouldn't leave out Bill Richardson. While no one gave a shit what he would do as Vice-President, he felt the need to take out his cock and ruler.
Governor Richardson, Fidel Castro is still alive. How do you feel about normalizing relations with Castro's Cuba?
RICHARDSON: I have to answer a fundamental question that requires a presidential answer, and that is -- I think you said if two of our cities were attacked, what would I do?
MODERATOR: Yes.
RICHARDSON: I would respond militarily, aggressively. I'll build international support for our goals. I'd improve our intelligence, but that would be a direct threat on the United States, and I would make it clear that that would be an important, decisive, military response, surgical strike, whatever it takes.
It's very clear. Out of the top four contenders for the Democratic nomination, there is only one whose first instinct would not be to deploy our military.
Cross-posted on My Barn has a Weather Vane