In an April 27 New York Post article on the previous day's Democratic presidential candidates debate, Republican strategist Rich Galen, who served as communications director for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), falsely suggested that, in contrast with Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) did not mention using military force when asked "how [each would] change the U.S. military stance overseas" in the event of an Al Qaeda attack in the United States.
Galen wrote:The clear winner between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was Bill Richardson.
He won me over by giving by far the strongest answer on confronting terrorism - he would use military force.
Bravo!
In fact, in response to the question -- "[I]f, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it had been the work of Al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?" -- Clinton, Obama, and Richardson all expressed support for the use of military force.
Just because Progressives are antiwar doesn't mean we won't fight terrorists if we have to!!!! Hillary and Obama would do what's necessary to protect America and secure democracy. It's a LIE to say they wouldn't. What they wouldn't do, though, is hinder our good relationship with other allies and alienate the entire international community. We also wouldn't "contract out" the war and occupation to the free market, making it waste lots of money, or send our soldiers to Iraq without the body armor and tools they need to be safe. We would have won by now and could then work on fixing up America and spreading peace to other nations too not just the ones with oil.
Call me cynical. I say I just have my eyes opened.
No comments:
Post a Comment