Looking for debate info, I found this:
Asked what she would do if two American cities were simultaneously attacked, Clinton let ‘er rip. “Having been a senator during 9/11, I understand the extraordinary horror of that kind of attack,” she said. “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. That doesn’t mean we go looking for other fights. Let’s focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.”
It was at least the second time in the debate that Clinton referenced her experience as a Senator during and after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks — an effort to show she has been in the trenches fighting terrorism and its aftermath for years.
Edwards, who was asked that same question, emphasized the importance of diplomacy — changing the way that the world looks at America. “We have more tools available to us than bombs,” Edwards said.
Richardson went a step further, advocating an immediate military retaliation.
Can someone give me a better account of what the question was? I mean, military retaliation against whom? I mean, there was no military retaliation after the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London for the very good reason that there was nowhere to retaliate. Having deposed the Taliban from ruling Afghanistan, we can’t respond to a new al-Qaeda attack — even a big one — by deposing the Taliban again. So what are we talking about here? Presumably not just lashing out at random.
