First of all, neither one of them are going to do anything differently in the way of preventing an attack. If terrorists scheme up another plan, it's either going to work or it's not and that won't have anything to do with who the President is at the time. Not to mention I don't think it's humanly possible to react worse to an attack than Bush did so either way I think we'd be better off with either one of them. Like others have said, this wouldn't be one mans sole discretion, there would be countless people with more than enough experience, intel and other limitless knowledge all coming together to help make the best decision possible for the country.

You know who else advocates talking to Iran with no preconditions? James Baker.

So what? Is this supposed to sway me in some way?

Following a large scale terrorist attack, Obama will not have 20 years to respond. There will be few opportunities for do-overs if he wins the White House.

George W. Bush had 18 months after 9/11 to decide whether or not an invasion of Iraq was a proper course of action ... and we know how that turned out.

 

Again, no president makes an immediate snap decision of what to do on his own after a catastrophic event. He has advisers to help devise the proper response.

George W. Bush had 18 months after 9/11 to decide whether or not an invasion of Iraq was a proper course of action ... and we know how that turned out.

 

Again, no president makes an immediate snap decision of what to do on his own after a catastrophic event. He has advisers to help devise the proper response.

Our immediate response to the attack was to pursue Al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters in Afghanistan and it was the right thing to do. Obama only disassociated himself with Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and Father Pfleger after some intense political pressure came to bear, some 20 years after he first began to soak in the toxic sermons of Rev. Wright. My concern is that he will be continue to wait for marching orders when he gets into the White House and I am concerned who will be giving him those marching orders.

First of all, neither one of them are going to do anything differently in the way of preventing an attack. If terrorists scheme up another plan, it's either going to work or it's not and that won't have anything to do with who the President is at the time. Not to mention I don't think it's humanly possible to react worse to an attack than Bush did so either way I think we'd be better off with either one of them. Like others have said, this wouldn't be one mans sole discretion, there would be countless people with more than enough experience, intel and other limitless knowledge all coming together to help make the best decision possible for the country.

The appointees to head Homeland Security and the Justice Department will have a substantial bearing on whether or not terrorist schemes are successful.

Our immediate response to the attack was to pursue Al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters in Afghanistan and it was the right thing to do. Obama only disassociated himself with Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and Father Pfleger after some intense political pressure came to bear, some 20 years after he first began to soak in the toxic sermons of Rev. Wright. My concern is that he will be continue to wait for marching orders when he gets into the White House and I am concerned who will be giving him those marching orders.

 

And just who do you think might be giving him his marching orders?

And just who do you think might be giving him his marching orders?

The same people who convinced him that it was time to disown Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, and Tony Rezko...his big contributors and the pollsters.

 

If public opinion is going to drive critical presidential decisions, then we might as well make internet access a constitutional right and just take an instant opinion poll when a tough decision needs to be made - and save taxpayers the expense of all of the perks associated with the presidency.

 

I prefer a president who does not lead from the rear.

Who said Obama's response to a terrorist attack would be negotiation?

 

Obama's plan, like it or not, is at least some sort of pre-emptive effort.

 

 

I agree. Obama has indicated he would consider striking al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence and the Pakistanis refused to take action. That would be, you know, the real al Qaeda and not the al Qaeda lite rabble in Iraq. When you really think about it, our response to the 9/11 attacks has been anything but confidence-inspiring. We make a half-hearted effort in Afghanistan to knock out the organization that was directly responsible for the attacks on the American homeland and then commit probably ten times the resources on the unecessary and unrelated war in Iraq. And John McCain has been nodding in agreement the whole time.

 

What in the world happened to the tough talk on the pile of rubble at Ground Zero? We were going to hunt down the terrorists who knocked down the buildings wherever they were. Well, folks, they're in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they're making a mockery out of us and our impotent response.

 

Obama has correctly stated many times that the appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks would have been to stamp out al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have not devoted the miliitary resources and attention to do this and we have abandoned the initial common-sense doctrine of taking the fight to the enemy who attacked us (i.e. the real enemy). John McCain has stated that the invasion of Iraq was a correct response, therefore he has shown that his poor judgement is perfectly aligned with Bush's poor judgement on the subject of dealing with terrorist threats. How one can say, based on this history, that John McCain is the preferred candidate to deal with another attack on the U.S.? He might decide to invade Liechtenstein the next time al Qaeda hits us.

I agree. Obama has indicated he would consider striking al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence and the Pakistanis refused to take action. That would be you know, the real al Qaeda, not the al Qaeda lite rabble in Iraq. When you really think about it, our response to the 9/11 attacks has been anything but confidence-inspiring. We make a half-hearted effort in Afghanistan to knock out the organization that was directly responsible for the attacks on the American homeland and then commit probably ten times the resources on the unecessary and unrelated war in Iraq. And John McCain has been nodding in agreement the whole time.

 

What in the world happened to the tough talk on the pile of rubble at Ground Zero? We were going to hunt down the terrorists who knocked down the buildings wherever they were. Well, folks, they're in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they're making a mockery out of us and our impotent response.

 

Obama has correctly stated many times that the appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks would have been to stamp out al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have not devoted the miliitary resources and attention to do this and we have abandoned the initial common-sense doctrine of taking the fight to the enemy who attacked us (i.e. the real enemy). John McCain has stated that the invasion of Iraq was a correct response, therefore he has shown that his poor judgement is perfectly aligned with Bush's poor judgement on the subject of dealing with terrorist threats. How one can say, based on this history, that John McCain is the preferred candidate to deal with another attack on the U.S.? He might decide to invade Liechtenstein the next time al Qaeda hits us.

 

Good points, H. :thumb:

If I see any more posts discussing each other, this thread goes bye-bye.

Trust in what respect? I am assuming we are talking about an attack that has already been carried out on U.S. soil. I would have no reason not to trust either one of them. I have total confidence that both would take whatever measures would be best for the American people and the country. I'll sleep well with either.

 

I agree that either would take necessary steps but would you not agree that McCain's strength is his knowledge of foreign affairs? I think some of his domestic stands are the cause of many voters concern.