CHAPMAN: A 'My Pet Goat' moment

The answer to debate question and his choice of a multilateralist Clinton definitely formulates his strategic defense policy, i.e. completely reactionary and risk aversive consensus driven. The appropriate response to the debate questions should have been to ensure no more attacks are on their way (i.e. protect the body) and then work with emergency response (bandage the wound). You will remember that Bill Clinton never did use U.S. force unilaterally in U.S. interests even when he was justified (WTC, Khobar Towers, Embassy and USS Cole bombings - blowing up a pharmacy and a bunch of tents doesn't count) and he only applied it when he could share the blame of mistakes multilaterally in Kosovo and in international interests (World War III was not going to start in Kosovo). Since he hired the HillBills, you should not expect anything different.

Oh! Yeah? "The reaction from fellow Illinois Democrats was swift and severe." The investigation had been going on for 3 years. Everyone in the Democrat party had to know what was going on, because it is impossible to shake down everyone for 3 years and not have everyone know about it. The reaction was not "swift and severe"; it was the minimum possible by a gang of crooks. The real question is: Will they get the rest?

Despite Mr. Fitzgerald's protestations to the contrary, I can't help but wonder which skeleton in which of Mr. Obama's closets da Guv is hiding up his sleeve.

Why the dig against Sarah Palin? Absolutely nothing to do with the story. Why doesn't the reporter go back to the sandbox with the other children? Besides his mother wears combat boots! nyah, nyah

My Pet Goat? When informed that an airplane had impacted the World Trade Center the President chose to not react to that fact without knowing whether it was an accident, the work of some nutcase, or an act of terrorism. I don't see the parallel to Mr. Obama's position.

northcoast: You are quite correct, there is no parallel between Mr. Bush's My Pet Goat moment and Mr. Obama's statements. On 9/11 Mr. Bush was told by his chief of staff, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack," and it was Mr. Bush's job to take immediate action to protect the nation. He failed to do so. When Mr. Obama was informed of the allegations against the Illinois governor, it wasn't his job to take any action at all. He wasn't president yet, and he was no longer a U.S. senator. So, again, you are correct, there is no parallel to be seen. Good point.

Oh, I can't wait for Jan.20. Then all the liars and know nothings will have to defend their guy's action or lack thereof. Now just when will everything be made well? 1 week, 2 months, 3 years, 1 decade is where Obama is heading towards in his latest talks. Gee, he could be in office for 8 years and nothing may get done that "change and hope" were to do. I feel a chill running up my leg. We will see what all these folks will be saying soon. I'm sure they will find someone else to hate as that is the limit of their thought process.

OK, SB9876, After the second impact, it was a circle the wagons moment. The President was out of there, and defensive measures like the air traffic lock down were put in place. (I don't remember any of that being faulted by the 9/11 Commission.) Had the attacks been launched by a conventional military force there could have been a military reaction to defend against further attack and to retaliate. Asymetric conflict does not afford that opportunity.