Obama on toughness in a crisis

"Obama for president" (aka the "Swamp") works overtime again to promote their candidate. Unfortunately for Obama, he was asked some questions on actual issues.

Obama is quoted with his usual quota of moronisms:

""I don't think there can be any doubt that I would strike swifty, promptly and vigorously if there was an attack on us," Obama said.

"But he noted that he would order a response to a terrorist attack in four steps: first, an emergency response to aid victims of the attack; second, an effort to identify and stop any other imminent attacks; third, an assessment to find out who was responsible for the attacks; and, finally, a retaliatory response."

The terrorists are laughing at this one. In other words, Obama's "swift, prompt, vigorous" response to an attack would be anything BUT 'swift", "prompt" or "vigorous". As he knows, just the "assessment" part alone would take months. And his saying he'd only do a "retaliatory response" condemns the U.S. to always be on the defensive--a sure strategy for defeat.

"Asked what kinds of crises he has actually faced during his political career, Obama cited negotiating legislative deals on contentious issues"

Comparing the usual legislative negotiation to an ACTUAL crisis shows just how out of touch Obama is.

Yet another Demon-crat talking against God's Messenger, President Bush.

What do you Demon-crats have against God, Jesus and President Bush?

*****insert obligatory "RNC" Bruce attack on Senator Obama and the "liberal" media******

He's not going to be the dunderhead that says "Bring it on".

I am an independent who voted for GHWB but not GWB. My husband is an informed,conservative(voted Republican until 2004), retired oil industry executive who is interested in Obama's campaign and was very impressed by Obama on This Week today. He said he did not see how anyone could have watched that interview and not been affected by his responses and intelligence. I'm just sayin'- Obama has a VERY broad appeal....
He is a true threat to the system.

Does this "Bruce" get paid to be this stupid all the time?

I swear the only time he posts on here is to knock Senator Obama or to claim that there's
some sort of "liberal media bias" that's taking over the world and The Swamp.

Bruce, have you not been watching anything other than Fox News the last 6 years?

The Republicans are tanking by their own doing and no one is listening to or believeing them anymore.
You're going to be a sad little boy when the Democrats take the Whitehouse and more Congressional seats in 08, and mark my words you android, it's going to happen.

"But he noted that he would order a response to a terrorist attack in four steps: first, an emergency response to aid victims of the attack; second, an effort to identify and stop any other imminent attacks; third, an assessment to find out who was responsible for the attacks; and, finally, a retaliatory response."

-------------------------

Obama's answer was absolutely correct. What you fail to comprehend, in your state of ignorance and bias, is that actions can be taken concurrently, as well as consecutively. I must say that your identification of this as a “problem” indicates a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

1). Emergency response to aid victims – what else is first??? We need to do a better job of having plans ready at Homeland Defense, as well as local agencies, to deal with major threats, including “dirty bombs”, water supply problems, power plants, etc. On 9/11, the responders did not even have common communications. Lots to fix, here.

2). Stop additional attacks – Here’s where Bush’s first 7 minutes could have hurt, as there were 2 other planes involved. Imagine the results of Flight 93 getting to its target. Once an attack happens, panic can set in, and it’s critical that the public understand that the authorities are already looking for follow-ups. This clearly can be taking place at the SAME time as #1.

3). Determine responsibility – this is the job of highest authorities, and would be ongoing CONCURRENTLY with #1 and #2. Bush did this – he did NOT go out and attack the entire “axis”, but instead determined who was truly implicated.

Unfortunately, Cheney’s nonsense about PRE-9/11 Iraq involvement has blurred this, but Bush handled #3 correctly.

4). Retaliation – this is actually the most straightforward part, as our military is always ready to go. It MUST follow #3 in terms of knowing WHO was responsible. Bush did this correctly as well, initially.

The problem was that the “terror war” moved to Iraq, and left Afghanistan as “unfinished business”, and al Qaeda continues as a threat.

Obama is a politician, and will speak in vagueries and only take positions that he knows a majority of Americans support. As long as he has supporters to defend him and presume the details he is lacking, he will be fine. I don't fault him for this, as I would probably do the same if I were in his shoes. At some point he will need to distinguish himself from the other Democrats and we will get a better glimpse of what he is all about.

pb, calling Bruce ignorant or biased only tells me that you fear an honest debate, lack confidence in your position, or are under ten years old. If you had confidence in your position and ability to present it, your words would speak for themselves and insults would be unnecessary.

pb Excellent analysis.
OBama has great appeal. If he gets the nomination he has a great chance of winning.
Hillary has the upper hand at this point but probably could not bring the country together because a great percentage of her opponents would never accept her as President.
I think the voters have had 20 years of Bush - Clinton and are looking for someone different.
It sure would be nice again to have a President that can actually think, speak, and willing to listen to and respect other people and countries.

RE: pb, calling Bruce ignorant or biased only tells me that you fear an honest debate, lack confidence in your position, or are under ten years old. If you had confidence in your position and ability to present it, your words would speak for themselves and insults would be unnecessary.
-------

I based my reply upon the fact that:

“Obama is quoted with his usual quota of moronisms”

... deserved a response in kind. As to debate, here I am. What I lack confidence in is the Administration, and those camp followers who’ve excused the ineptitude of the past several years, now being condemned even by Republicans, but who hang into Bush in support as though, perhaps. their own veracity were likewise in doubt via their support for him.

Your first paragraph, on the other hand, while correct, would work for any candidate running in this early stage – just change the name of the candidate, and the party. Why we are judging candidates this early, I cannot imagine.

The “debates” were joint press conferences, and until the primaries, it’s all for show and position. I think Mitt Romney made a fine appearance tonight on “60 Minutes”, and by the end of it, I had no idea what he actually stood for, since he’s changed his mind so many times. He does look good while doing it, however, which may be the secret of success.

What do you Demon-crats have against God, Jesus and President Bush?

Posted by: Jesus Rocks! | May 13, 2007 12:49:01 PM

They have too many mindless followers.

The questions, meant to pin Obama down on security issues (and which Obama promptly flunked), were asked on the ABC News "This Week" show hosted by George Stephanopoulos. George Stephanopoulos, a longtime Democrat party operative, was given the ABC job after serving for years as Bill Clinton's press secretary.

Don'tcha love it when the Clintonistas go after Obama like that?

I understand America's divorce rate has come down significantly. perhaps we should credit this to the president.

But alas hang on, perhaps what this statistics is not telling us is that marriage rate in the USA has significantly come down, reason being that most American young men have either lost their lives in Iraq or are being held in Iraq fighting a meanless war.

This is perhaps a serious violation of women rights. American women need their men at home not in Iraq. why dont they start acting tough with their votes.

I'm Guessing that Jeezus' Rocks is joking. Right?

Yet another Demon-crat talking against God's Messenger, President Bush.

What do you Demon-crats have against God, Jesus and President Bush?

Posted by: Jesus Rocks! | May 13, 2007 12:49:01 PM

Mr. Rocks:

The latter of the the three claims to have been placed in the presidency by the 1st while the latter was and remains an utter hypocrit to the ideals of the middle named.

The questions, meant to pin Obama down on security issues (and which Obama promptly flunked),
Posted by: Bruce | May 14, 2007 6:45:38 AM

Please...lets not bring up leaks. This administration had enough holes to fill Albert Hall. Shall we list them for you?

"The terrorists are laughing at this one. In other words, Obama's "swift, prompt, vigorous" response to an attack would be anything BUT 'swift", "prompt" or "vigorous". As he knows, just the "assessment" part alone would take months. And his saying he'd only do a "retaliatory response" condemns the U.S. to always be on the defensive--a sure strategy for defeat."

Just bomb someone, anyone, who cares if they had anything to do with it, just kill some random people!

Brilliant Bruce, just brilliant.

My guess is Leo T is on to something with his suspicions about "Jesus Rocks." Methinks it is actually someone like John E or Raving Loon.

Bill R., "mindless followers"?? That does describe the the Democratic party not the Republican and those who are Republicans. In the Republican party we actually have candidates and debates regarding illegal immigration and what to do about it, abortion, taxes and spending, etc. There are distinct differences in positions among McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, etc. Can you tell me where there is much difference among any of the Democratic candidates?

And PB, the seven minutes Bush remained with the students had no bearing whatsoever on the events of 9/11. He did the right thing. The meeting with the students was still cut short and he didn't alarm the students by immediately leaving them. I'll never understand why you Lefties get your undies in a bunch about this. I would imagine it has something to do with what Bill R. says about mindless followers. Until Michael Moore made a big stink about it in Fahrenlies 911, no one cared about it.

And sending in first responders is a natural thing to do. The question about how to handle a terrorist attack was quuite weak by Obama, which is why in the This Week program he came across tougher than in the debate, because he and his handlers knew his response was weak.

[quote]
Don'tcha love it when the Clintonistas go after Obama like that?
Posted by: Bruce | May 14, 2007 6:45:38 AM
[/quote]

You mean like the Indonesian "madrassa school" smear that far right Insight magazine pumped back in February, which CNN immediately DEBUNKED, yet it and people like Paulo REFUSE to provide ANY PROOF that the smear came from Hillary's campaign staff? Since he's provided NO PROOF in THREE MONTHS, why does he REFUSE to admit that it's a complete fabrication?

"In the Republican party we actually have candidates and debates regarding illegal immigration and what to do about it, abortion, taxes and spending, etc."

Johnny D, Rudy's debates with himself on what his stand on abortion don't count.

I'd like to hear a "lofty generality" on how Obama plans on PREVENTING attacks.

The funny thing is that we are slowly seeing the real Obama. He can't rely on his wonderful speech of lofty generalities at the DNC in 2004 anymore.

He actually has to SAY something.

I'm sure plenty of his future gaffes will be brushed under the table by a left wing media always looking to asuage their Guilty White Male syndrome.

Maybe someone will hire Jason Blair to cover Obama.

"My guess is Leo T is on to something with his suspicions about "Jesus Rocks." Methinks it is actually someone like John E or Raving Loon."

Be careful John D, Leo T, and Brucie. Although the words of "Jesus Rocks" are tantilizing, it may be a trap! Do not befriend this person, for they do not TRULY believe that President Bush is God's messenger. Be thankful you know the truth. Amen.

RE: PB, the seven minutes Bush remained with the students had no bearing whatsoever on the events of 9/11. He did the right thing. The meeting with the students was still cut short and he didn't alarm the students by immediately leaving them.

---

One thing about the Bushies; no lack of excuses. “Alarm the students”??? Is that like “embolden the terrorists”?

The President could have excused himself like an adult, and had the teacher take over the class. What’s more important – the President leading the country, or leading a class?

What garbage!

Next, you'll be finding a reason for the Katrina delay. Perhaps, Bush was out jogging with the Boy Scouts.

The appropriate actions of a president reading to a group of schoolchildren on 9/11:

"Children, the President has to take care of some important national business. There is nothing to be alarmed about, but instead of me listening to you read my Chief of Staff will have to do so in my place."

Thought exercise for Bush apologists:
What would you have said if Al Gore had done the exact same thing (sat frozen looking off into space after being told the nation is under attack)?? Look deep inside, would you not have accused him of freezing under pressure and performing poorly?

The appropriate actions of a president reading to a group of schoolchildren on 9/11:

"Children, the President has to take care of some important national business. There is nothing to be alarmed about, but instead of me listening to you read my Chief of Staff will have to do so in my place."

Thought exercise for Bush apologists:
What would you have said if Al Gore had done the exact same thing (sat frozen looking off into space after being told the nation is under attack)?? Look deep inside, would you not have accused him of freezing under pressure and performing poorly?

Bryan,

If you know me at all you know that I'm not Bush's (or any pol's) apologist. But honestly, what difference did this 7 minutes make? What could any president have done instantaneously?

Even if Bush had made your proposed statement and promptly exited, then what? He'd have to wait for his staff to get their poop together, AF-1 to get ready etc. So Moore's 7 minutes is a cheap shot.

And I would say the same if Gore were president.

Now if you want to complain about what Bush did in the subsequent months and years, I won't argue with you.

Leo T-

What Bush should have been doing during that 7 minutes was what any reasonably curious person would have, and did - get as much information as possible about what was going on. Even, if that moment it meant just listening to a radio, he would have at least been preparing himself to make the decisions that would follow.

As the attacks developed, there probably wasn't much he could have done (perhaps there was, a decision needed to be made about shooting down airliners), but at that moment, no one knew that. No one knew what that next critical piece of information might be, something that could have required an immediate Presidential response.

That Bush chose to be out of touch with the unfolding information during an unfolding crisis is simply mind boggling to me.

Leo T,

Awful touchy, I didn't accuse you of being a Bush apologist.

But seriously, that 7 minutes was actually quite insightful (and, btw, though I had never actually seen the footage before Fahrenheit 9/11, the 7 minutes of befuddlement was wildly acknowledged). The quizzical look of puzzlement says it all.

There were MANY serious warnings in the summer of '01 that The Big One was coming. Did Mr. Bush ignore those warnings all together? If he had not ignored them, his reaction probably should have been more like Richard Clarke's, who immediately recognized what was going on. If he had ignored them, his puzzlement was more of the lines of figuring out what actually was happening. Either way, it was a shameful display by the leader of this nation.

It would have been equally shameful had Al Gore done the same thing, but I stand by my statement that had that been the case, Mr. Gore would have never been able to live those 7 minutes down because it fits with the biases of the media that Republicans are tough (therefore Bush's failure to act appropriately was just an isolated failure) and Democrats are weak (therefore Mr. Gore's lack of action would have been one more example of supposed weakness in the face of military adversity).

Leo, we can agree to disagree on this one, but I don't see how anyone can spin Mr. Bush's reaction into anything close to a positive. He was supposed to be our resolute, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners Commander in Chief. Instead, on that day and in that classroom, he looked like a C student in way over his head, who genuinely didn't know what to do next. Bush wants to be a War President, but on the day war was brought to us, he did nothing to rally the U.S. defenses or comfort a grieving nation. It wasn't until days later that we heard anything from our leader.

And since then, this elaborate myth has been created around 9/11 that is completely unrelated to reality. George Bush took days to get his head together before he finally was able to act "presidential." Rudy Giuliani was walking the streets of NY with a bullhorn because he had located his command post in the World Trade Center complex, against the advice of security personnel. His response would have been significantly more effective, though likely less photo-op friendly, had he listened to their advice initially.

And finally, the biggest whopper of them all: we never anticipated such an assault and therefore our defenses were not designed to protect against terrorists hijacking airliners and using them as weapons. Again, none of this is necessarily directed at you, Leo, but that narrative is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT BULL-HONKY. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a830globalguardian

NORAD WAS trained to deal with airplane hijackings. In fact, in the months leading up to 9/11, NORAD jets had been scrambled to intercept off-course airliners 64 times, yet over a period of 2 hours on 9/11 somehow none were activated. Terrorists using airliners as missiles was a credible enough threat that the G8 Summit in Genoa in July of 2001 was ringed with anti-aircraft batteries to protect against just such an attack. Yet the 9/11 plot went off with only one hitch, that being the downing of Flight 93.

I'm just sick of the whole storyline that has no basis in reality. The fact is, our defenses failed us on 9/11 far worse than any one seems willing to acknowledge. This wasn't a lack of imagination on our part, OUR SYSTEMS WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT 9/11. We will never be able to move forward and come up with answers to the problems of security if we misunderstand what the problems really are.

I should also add, in terms of the relevance of the 7 minutes, that in light of the fact that George Walker Bush to this very day still invokes 9/11 as a sign of his "leadership," his performance before, during and immediately after hold increased relevance. Before 9/11, he did literally nothing to stop Al Qaeda from going about its plans and executing them unperturbed. On first hearing of the horror unfolding outside, in the nation that he was to lead, the President's reaction was to stare off into space for 7 minutes. LITERALLY ANYTHING would have been preferable to this response. As Tony aptly points out, he could have been asking questions, trying to discover what exactly was happening and who was doing it. He could have mobilized the military to prevent further mayhem. Heck, he could have called the man who was actually in charge on that day, his Vice President, to figure out what in blazes was happening.

A person's initial response to a surprise or sudden crisis is as telling of a moment as possible. Everything else this president does is completely scripted. But that moment showed the Emperor utterly without clothes. The President of the United States, upon hearing that his nation was undoubtedly under attack on its soil for the first time since Pearl Harbor, sat, silent, in a room full of children, and listened to them read My Pet Goat for 7 minutes before deciding it was time to leave.

In light of my previous statements, I believe I would have been completely appalled if that had been President Al Gore's response. Its simply not a reasonable response to the situation. Worrying or disappointing 18 schoolchildren on September 11 was simply the least of the President's worries on that day, or at least it should have been. If President Obama, Clinton or Giuliani is caught with the same lack of intelligent reaction for the next strike, I will chastise them for it as well. George Walker Bush does not on any level deserve the complete free-pass he has received in regards to 9/11.

In a more sane country, that would be a national tragedy that he would invoke only somberly and to unite around a common cause. Instead he uses it as one giant wedge to divide the country 51-49%. Again, if the country were saner, we would question why the man who, entrusted singularly with the protection of this nation, failed (or allowed the nation's systems to fail) so horrendously on that day and yet gains significant political traction every time it is invoked. If its utter success was not his fault (and if its not Bush's fault at all, it CERTAINLY ain't his predecessor's), he did absolutely nothing to stop the attacks on any level whatsoever, and there were many many ways that he could have altered the course of events.

Sorry to rant but I am just completely sick of all the fairy tales and revisionist history that occupies our political and social dialogue. Again, Leo, this isn't directed at you as we do largely agree, but in light of the bigger picture of Bush's political dialogue with the country and his use of 9/11 as a trump card, his embarassing performance on September 11 should not be outside the realm of scrutiny. If one wants to call oneself a hero in a situation, it helps if one actually acted heroically.

Sorry folks, Bush did nothing wrong on 9/11. The seven minutes wouldn't have made any difference. Upon the hitting of the second tower, actions did begin in the face of what was then known to be a terrorist attack.

I'm surprised the Loony Left hasn't brought up that Bush didn't return to the White House until late afternoon/early evening. Why? Because the Secret Service takes over; Bush gets flown throughout the country and lands in Louisiana and then Nebraska, I believe.

And I don't care who is president, whether Bush or Gore, I still wouldn't have a problem with those seven minutes.

But at least some of you folks are admitting it was terrorists who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings cause I have hD many, and I do mean many, Ultra Loony Lefters in the Swamp tell me the planes and explosions were optical illusions, no planes flew into any buildings or even into the ground in Pennsylvania, the buildings collapsed due to controlled explosion set off by ole George himself (making up the ole George part for humor purposes and to make the point)etc., etc.

And PB, the seven minutes Bush remained with the students had no bearing whatsoever on the events of 9/11. He did the right thing.
Posted by: John D | May 14, 2007 8:36:27 AM

Maybe they didn't, but it sure showed what a blockhead he is. Somehow I can't imagine Mr Obama sitting there like a child for seven minutes. Mr Bush is a cretin!!!

Johnny D-

Do you really believe any President, other than George W Bush, would have gone over 7 minutes after being told the US was under attack, without asking a single question about the situation, or seeking any further information about what was transpiring?

RE: And PB, the seven minutes Bush remained with the students had no bearing whatsoever on the events of 9/11. He did the right thing.
Posted by: John D | May 14, 2007 8:36:27 AM

--------