NY Post's Galen misrepresented Clinton, Obama debate responses on terrorism
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.
NBC News anchor Brian Williams, one of the moderators of the debate, asked the question directly to Obama, former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), and Clinton, respectively. Williams did not directly ask that question of Richardson, but Richardson addressed the issue of a terrorist attack later in the debate.
Obama, whose initial response to Williams' question focused on the need for "an effective emergency response" and "good intelligence," later added, after responding to a different question: "[W]e have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down." Obama continued:
OBAMA: Networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years.
Clinton answered the terrorism question by saying: "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate," later adding, "[L]et's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can do destroy them." Clinton said:
CLINTON: I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported, or gave material aid, to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.
Now that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made had I been president, because we still haven't found [Osama] bin Laden, so let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can do destroy them.
After being asked how he felt about "normalizing relations with [Fidel] Castro's Cuba," Richardson addressed William's earlier question about terrorism, stating that he "would respond militarily, aggressively." Richardson said:
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?
WILLIAMS: 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.
In his response, Edwards said: "[T]he 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." He later added:
EDWARDS: I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.
But, we have more tools available to us than bombs, and America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit -- the next generation -- get pushed to our side, not to the other side.
From MSNBC's April 26 Democratic presidential debate:
WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, if, 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?
OBAMA: Well, the first thing we would 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 -- and I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of, not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.
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 that 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 relationship with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security, by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.
WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you. Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneous attacks tonight; we knew it was Al Qaeda. What would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?
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. The second thing I would do -- and some of these have been mentioned already -- is find out how that this happened without our intelligence operations finding out that it was in a planning stage.
How did they get through what we all recognize is a fairly porous homeland security system that we have in this country that has not been built the way it needed to be built? You know, did the weapons that created these two simultaneous strikes come through our ports? Were they in one of the containers that have not been checked? How did these weapons get here? And how do we stop it from happening again?
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.
But, we have more tools available to us than bombs, and America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit -- the next generation -- get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one as president.
WILLIAMS: Senator, we're out of time, thank you. Senator Clinton, same question.
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 who 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 was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported, or gave material aid, to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.
Now that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden, so let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can do destroy them.
[...]
WILLIAMS: 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?
WILLIAMS: 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.
WILLIAMS: All right, grant you a few more for the answer on Castro.
[...]
OBAMA: One thing that I do have to go back on, on this issue of terrorism, we have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down. Networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military and, in some cases, lethal force to take out terrorists and, at the same time, building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years. And that, I think, is going to be one of the most important issues that the next president is going to have to do -- is to repair the kinds of challenges that we face.
Another strikeout here.......misrepresented? How? Galen doesn't even address Clinton or Obama's responses. He only says he personally was "won over" by Richardsons because he liked his "strongest" stance - how is that misrepresenting Clinton or Obama?
how is that misrepresenting Clinton or Obama?
It isn't. There must be a quota of threads needed to fill here for the weekend?
Apparently if the media doesn't praise every Democrat equally, it must be MIS-information ;-)
Yup. As everyone knows, Democrats are totally beyond reproach and must be bowed to as the gods that they are.
Notice how the candidates left out the causes of hatred against us, only how they would bomb or "cooperate" with other nations in killing someone. The relationship with Israel, the massive US military presence, the backing of hated regimes....not mentioned at all.
Proof that they are NOT a solution, just a continuation of the disease.
and nothing to do with the question here.
Wrong. Actually, Obama did specifically adress the problem of hatred against America and what could be done to stop it. You see? Not ALL Democrats are evil.
Ask him about the US relationship with Israel sometime. He kisses AIPAC butt, so he won't change a thing.
Galen would have been on solid ground had he simply left it at "strongest response", but he put forth "military force" as his basis for determining what constitutes the "strongest response" while Clinton advocated "do(ing) everything we can do destroy them" and "moving as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate" while Obama advocated "lethal force to take out terrorists".
This was clearly an insinuation that Clinton and Obama would not respond with force to terror attacks.
So their answer to the question of terrorism is just to bomb people? Oh great, makes me want to rush right out and vote Democrat. When we need real solutions to complex problems, they'll just BOMB the problem into a bigger problem. Real winners the Dems are running this time, the level of depth and insight is staggering!
Just more proof the Dem candidates have no solution to the situation and just want to kill arabs for Israeli donations.
right, that's what they said. just randomly bomb people.
Did you even see the debate? Obama (ironically) sid "we have many tools other than bombs and we have to use those more extensively.
No offense, but I expected a little more forethought and fact-checking from a fellow liberal. You are NOT going to get Nader elected by alienating others during a debate. I don't mean agree with them, but be a little more careful with your accusations. You might make friends. Unlike conservatives, we have other rhethorical weapons than slander.
Ironically, because it almost sounded like what you said the Democrats were not saying.
They talk of alliances to "destroy networks". They talk of cooperation in gathering intelligence...to do what? Set up targets usually, in the US political vernacular. We're Americans, we love bombs bursting in air, the rocket's red glare, the dead children to prove the US Air Force was there. Not ONE of the candidates stated he would end the occupations and dismantle the Empire, did they? It's the same old same old from the same old same old. Nothing new on offer.
Your Democrats are not going to save you. Israel owns them and they will kill for Tel Aviv again and again and again. The "terrorists" will be anyone AIPAC demands we attack. Both parties have a proven track record of KILLING people. You're supporting killers. I'm not. Guess that makes me the real liberal.
I think you're confusing liberal with pacifist.
I think you're confusing Democrats with liberals.
Guess you weren't listening to Kucinich or Gravel.
Like the DNC will allow them the nomination. No liberals allowed in the White House. It would end the corporate gravy train and Israel would not like having a peacenik in charge of their puppet government in DC. All the "front-runners" (aka right-wing, pro-corporate, AIPAC-controlled orcs) have a track record of lobbying bombs at brown people when offered the chance. That's what Israel wants in the White House, that's what the war profiteers want, that's what the DLC will fund in the primaries. That's what the Dem voter will be sold...and they will buy it hook, line, and war crime, just like they have every time before.
Alright, what are you doing to change minds?
Raining derision on lefties, sounding like you're a little unstable, drives would be Green converts away. Give us a reason to go Green, anti-Democratic tirades are just counterproductive. Greens who come here and toss dookey on the wall do as little to persuade as conservatives who likewise throw feces.
Thing is, I and many others here, are probably very open to supporting Green candidates if they could express their progressive values in an authentically realistic philosophy. Democrats are bad is no reason to vote Green anymore than Republicans are bad is a reason to vote Democratic.
Believe them or no, the Democrats are winning the values debate and thus, public support, because they are learning how to frame the issues on their larger progressive moral worldview. From what I can tell, Greens need to communicate to people from a moral point of view why and how they are better for the country. That starts with blaming nothing but your message.
Go change minds.
Here's the best argument, the one I've been using all along; the best, most sane reason not to vote Democrat is because they KILL people. What the hell more do you need?!?!
Negative campaigning!
He said to stop calling people killers... that's not going to help, and i believe I've said it before. I happen to know the philosophy of the green party and agree with it. Now you tell everyone what's so good about them. Why should people vote green? Stop telling people 'what you're doingg sucks!' That doesn't work, never has, never will.
When exactly has America just attacked someone 'cuz Israel said so? Al Qaida attacked the US, Saddam was in the way of W's friends, who wanted oil... If Israel wanted someone dead, it would be Lebanon, Syria, Egypt... that kind of thing--hasn't happened. Dubya's going after Iran over Syria. Frankly, I don't see what your problem is: Obama said he won't start a war, and that's all anyone can do. He can't say "I won't got to war", that would never get him elected nor is it reasonble. Why not give him a chance?
AIPAC was all over the Iraq war crime build-up. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, etc. The PNAC has many members who came directly from AIPAC. Feith held secret meetings with Israeli generals in his position as cooker of intel as head of the OSP.
The main target is Iran, which Israel hates with a passion, because it helps Hezbollah. Israel wants a chunk of southern Lebanon and Iran helps those Lebanese who defend their homeland. It was AIPAC who forced the Dems to take out the provision in the recent war crimes funding bill that required Bush to ask permission before attacking Iran. Israeli generals have openly stated that Dem presidential candidates are to be pushed to attack Iran once in power. And they will, because of the power AIPAC holds over the Dem Party and DC in general.
Washington DC is Israeli-occupied territory. Until you understand that, you do not understand our Middle-Eastern policy. It is written by and for Israel and paid for by AIPAC. Obama is another AIPAC Democrat, so is Hillary. Kucinich isn't, so he won't get the backing of the Party or AIPAC or all the big bucks that come with it. This is why Dean was pushed out in favor of that zionazi Kerry in 2004.
So no, I will not give those who sell out our nation to a foreign country, who kill people for a few campaign contributions, a chance. They had it and they proved themselves murderers. No second chances for war criminals. I vote Green, we won't kill arab children for Israel's racism. Obama already has.
i think israel would be glad to be done with "southern lebanon". if the lebanese wanted peace with israel, they would stop their support of hezbollah, which rained ball bearing filled rockets indiscriminately into israel during the recent conflict. saudi arabia, egypt and jordan all initially condemned hezbollah for starting the conflict by kidnapping and killing israeli soldiers. and no one is killing more arabs than their own. look at iraq. two different sects of islam slaugthering each other.
Sounds pretty conspirational. Anyway, I doubt Israel wanted to see Saddam go, since he was keeping Iran in check. Also, from what I heard, they offered to help with intelligence after 9/11 but W turned them down...
I also think that the Dems would be a lot less corrupt than the Repugnants--they are usually...
Remember Saddam was offering money to families of suicide bombers? Israel did not like that. Israel always wanted revenge for the Scuds that Iraq shot at them back in '91, too. Israelis are really into holding grudges. Israel wanted Iraq broken up, the arabs at each other's throats, US military next to Iran and Syria, the world diverted from the Palestinian situation, a US that was eager to kill arabs more directly. I still wonder why Ehud Barak was conveniently at BBC hq the day of 9/11, to almost drool on camera about how the Americans must now confront terror more directly.
And your beloved Democrats have voted overwhelmingly for all this. I'm still waiting for the Dems in Congress to submit a bill demanding Guantanamo be closed down. But I'm not holding my breath. As long as the Democrat Party supports the war crimes, the torture, the corruption, they will NEVER get my vote.
Yeah, the Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world!
Look, I agree with a good bit of what you're saying. I agree that we should look for deeper solutions than figuring how best to kill the bad guys, and I agree that Israel too often gets a free pass on their actions, but you're coming off as a complete nutjob. Israel owns Washington? If anything, the United States owns Tel Aviv. A fracture in our relationship might hurt us, but it'd cost them a lot more- like, say, their VERY EXISTENCE.
I don't see a massive US lobby behind the Knesset. I don't see a massive PR campaign that bullies politicians and press to only say "Israel good, arab bad" inside Israel. In fact, their press is FAR more open on the subject than ours. I do see this in the US though. It's well-documented.
You can't ignore the Israel Lobby in Washington DC. It's the BIGGEST lobby, the most money, the most influence and it controls our Middle East policy. When AIPAC pulls the chain, DC barks. That was just proven when the Dems withdrew their demand for Congressional approval on any attack on Iran...at the Israel Lobby's COMMAND. When our politicians work for a foreign power against the best interest of the USA, they are TRAITORS.
And it's not "jews", it's far-right-wing Israelis and their supporters, pushing an ideology of religio-racial prejudice even Einstein likened to Nazism. Israel is in the top ten in military powers and is NOT threatened by impoverished Palestinians or the minor militaries of the neighbouring states. This whole thing about Israel being threatened with non-existence is total bs.
Yet, in your eyes, Bush's exact actions (which you deplore in regard to Dems) is OK? You call the Dems idiots on the grounds of something they didn't even DO or SAY. You make no mention of the calamity that is the Bush Administration and Republican party...
Have you already forgottn McCain's response when asked how to deal with Iran? "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
wrong tommy. galen said richardson would "use force", as if the others did not. but so did hillary, unless you have another meaning of "destroy" them.
Because he followed that by saying HE would use military force as if the other two wouldnt even though they both made it clear in thier response that they WOULD.
What the heck are you talking about? He said they did not mention using military force. They mentioned using military force. He misrepresented them. Not only that but this is a serial problem in the media. They try to get the Democrats to jump up and down waving the flag in order to prove they're good citizens by insinuating that they are somehow 'weak' on defense. So MM is pointing out an instance of an insidious, almost fascist tendency in the media. Do you not understand this? Are you just a plant from the GOP muddling the waters?
Either you and Jeter are being disingenuous or you have reading comprehension problems.
Galen wrote, "He won me over by giving by far the strongest answer on confronting terrorism - he would use military force." But so would Clinton and Obama--their answers were all virtually the same--therefore Galen misrepresented Clinton and Obama's position.
I agree that this guy implied Obama and Hillary would not use military force by singling out Richardson as "winning" because he said the word "military." I think the headline of MMfA's article could be more accurate though...I think "falsely" or "misrepresented" are different things than "implied".
"Strongest Response?"... I agree was Richardson, but he had the advantage of listening to 3 answers before his. "Military Force?"... They pretty much all called for a Military response which qualifies this as being Mis-Information from Media Matters. Galen would of been correct if he just said Richardson's was the "Strongest Response."
Most Intellegent, Complete and Presidential answer was Obama's at the end when he had the advantage of hearing the first 4 answers, which included his first answer, which was the weakest of them all.
Hillary's response was also excellent. I liked what Edwards said, but he needs to eat his wheaties next time for more energy and vigor. If Richardson was the first responder I'd be interested to see if he would have still been the strongest and most forceful.
I especially liked Dennis and the former Alaskan Senator. They brought some life to the debate. They should have all had a strong swig of something prior to the debate so as to lossen up a little. They were all very stiff and controlled looking.
I think they've coached Edwards to stay calm to try to enhance his 'maturity'. The main knock against him last time was that he was supposedly too young and inexperienced. This in spite of the fact that he was running for the nomination to run against a young and almost retarded president. But still, I think his lack of vigor you perceived is actually intended to counter all the hooha about youth, beauty and haircuts.
How could Galen miss Hillary's second sentence? She said, "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate." She couldn't have been clearer. If he was looking for an answer that used military force, that was certainly a strong one.
Here we have another example of being "blinded by the right."
I think Edwards was the only one that MMfA quoted in this article that was avoiding any words that implied military.
And the only reason Galon favored Richardson's response was because of the candidate's first sentence: "I would respond militarily, aggressively."
To Galon, anything short of overt military action is wussy.
Obama is a lightweight and an inexperienced suit. A Muslim by birth who has flip-flopped on his "Christianity" and his search for Faith, he would leave the country wide open to attack, and has never served honorably in the military. He is a cynical and air-brushed candidate with an ugly history of substance abuse, like the present President, but was raised in Indonesia under comfortable circumstances, and is filled with contradictions about his own honesty about recovering from the hell of substance abuse, his own connections to racist Reverends in Chicago, and his failure to denounce the race-baiting and anti-semitic ramblings of blatherskeits Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Suha Arafat kissing Hillary Rodham, who may be culpable for the murder of Vince Foster. Barack may have also met with War Criminal Abu Minyar "colonel" Muammar gaddaffi who has hosted other Islamist radical bigots like Louis Farrakhan, and Jesse Jackson and has conflicts of interest, and should resign from public office , and like Network movie actresses and actors, "we should go to our windows, and shout out," I am Mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"Maybe then Barack will take some personal responsibility, role up his sleeves to donate healthy blood and help with health care directly with his own toxic body and soul, and work on my campaign for The United States Presidency on any available party lines 2008 and 2012, as I am The Christian American national Sir Daniel M.J. Tobin of The Knights of Columbus, and The Nassau County Executive Committee Chairman to The Constitution Party. Respectfully Yours in Counter-terrorist activities and Victims' Rights and Civil Rights Defense, Sir Daniel M. J. Tobin, 115 Atlantic Ave Apt 2A,Hempstead,NY 11550-1204