Okay, it turns out I did miss something interesting by skipping last nights’ Democratic debate. Brian Williams, showing the mastery of his craft for which he is justly renowned, asked the candidates:

“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 it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?”

Maybe I’m being a hardened cynic, but I consider that question a softball. The obvious answer is, “As president, I would do everything in my power to annihilate Al Qaeda and it supporters around the world. Any government that aided in the attack or acquiesced in the attack would feel the full fury of the American military.” Easy, right? Nothing to this running for president thing.

Barack Obama offered a more nuanced take on things:

Well, first thing we’d 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 do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.

In other words, President Obama’s initial reaction to a national catastrophe several folds worse than 9/11 would be to look back to Katrina and BLAME BUSH™. After finishing that, he would look back to the run-up to the Iraq war and again, BLAME BUSH™. Only once all the Bush Blaming was done would President Obama “potentially take some action.” Potentially take some action? Gosh, that’s pretty strong stuff! I’m sure those harsh words made Jihadists around the world shudder.

Of course, I don’t believe for a second that Obama’s reaction to 9/11 on stilts would be to study the lessons of Katrina. His answer is merely indicative of how the left in general, and the left’s politicians in particular, have become utterly allergic to the use of force over the past four years. Honestly, they can’t even discuss it when a blow-dried anchorman lobs them a softball that gives them the perfect opportunity to do so.

John Edwards, naturally, offered an answer of the same sort. He, too, would launch an exhaustive forensic search for reasons, but as to what specific actions he would take, Edwards also didn’t demonstrate the first clue.

YOU KNOW THE ANSWER I GAVE, the one about annihilating Al Qaeda and anyone who may have helped it in the attack? That’s George W. Bush’s answer. More relevantly, the world believes that’s George W. Bush’s answer. The world believes that George W. Bush can’t wait to go after the entire Jihadist world.

At the moment, he’s constrained by our domestic politics. But our enemies know that a massive terror attack would overturn our political checkerboard in a heartbeat. George W. Bush would in an instant have carte blanche to settle all scores with all our enemies.

I’ve made no secret of the times when the president and his administration have disappointed me. But the simple fact is, the president’s clear stance on how he would respond to 9/11 on stilts has been one of the main things that has kept us safe the past five years.

If his successor is unclear on such vital matters, we’ll be less safe. A lot less safe.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com