The Candidates On Terrorism At Home

CBS Evening News: Obama And McCain Answer Katie Couric's Presidential Qutestions

(CBS)  In November, Americans decide whether Barack Obama or John McCain become the 44th President of the United States. In a new series, "Presidential Questions" CBS News anchor Katie Couric asks questions that move the candidates well beyond the usual sound-bites. Some questions will be about policy. Others will be more personal. All will give you a better sense of who these men are - and what has shaped them. What follows is Couric's question - and the candidates' full answers.

---

Katie Couric: Why do you think there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? And as president, how would you prevent that from happening again?

John McCain: Katie, I think we ought to give credit to the administration, to the president, and to the dedicated people who have worked from the level of our intelligence agencies around the world, to the local policemen, firemen, first responders, who have done such a magnificent job. I also, giving a little straight talk, think there's always an element of luck involved. I thank God every day, and so do all of us Americans. I think that we ought to have a closer relationship, probably, between Republican and Democrat on this. When we let our intelligence capability to monitor communications amongst would-be terrorists … or terrorists and we were gridlocked for so long is an indication that, perhaps, we've lost the unity that characterized America after 9/11. So I would work more closely with the leaders of Congress. I know them well. But I also think that we should unleash more of America's technology.

Couric: When you say technology, more technology, what exactly do you mean?

McCain: Whether it be … there's satellites. There's the kinds of technologies that are being developed in our national labs, as other places. And, by the way, part of that technology, I left that out, and that's human intelligence. Our technological capabilities are pretty good. They're gonna get better and we've got to work on getting them better. But we still haven't got the kind of human intelligence that can tell us the intentions of the enemy.

Barack Obama: Well … I think that the initial invasion into Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda. And that was the right thing to do. I mean, we had to knock out those safe havens. And that, I think, weakened them.

We did some work in strengthening our homeland security apparatus here. Obviously, the average person knows that when they go to the airport, because they are goin' through taking off their shoes … all that.

---

Check out the other installments of Presidential Questions.

---

The problem is when we got distracted by Iraq. We gave al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself. And we now know, based on all the intelligence available to us that they, in fact, have set up safe havens back in Afghanistan, the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are now carrying out very aggressive actions against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and they are training to attack the United States once again. So now, my hope obviously is that we continue to prevent them from being able to move at all out of those safe havens. But our intelligence indicates … that the danger, the likelihood, of a potential attack is significantly higher now. And that has been an enormous mistake that I intend to correct when I'm president of the United States.

[katina408]

It''s true that Obama uses teleprompters to make speeches but it is a known fact that he doesn''t use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events. Which is probably why he''s gotten this reputation of stuttering and floundering when he tries to gather his thoughts. However at least he doesn''t utter idiocies like McCain when he can''t find his cue cards..."the American economy is basically sound?" Iran borders Pakistan? (senior moment from a seasoned military officer? is this what we call ''military intelligence''? we''ll probably have more and more of them)...come on! When a huge segment of the population can''t afford sufficient health insurance to cover major catastrophes (the World Health Organization ranks us 37 after Costa Rica for health care access and performance and McCain wants to keep the same system...why shouldn''t he? He has access to a great health care system reserved for political representatives) and the investment banking sector has gone amok because of total deregulation (let''s let the fox into the chicken coop...oh well say the Republicans...folks over 65 can always go back to work to get their pensions back or buy their medicine and younger people can just find another job! just keep that low tax rate for millionaires like Donald Trump who ''create'' jobs for the proletariats). As far as ''facts'' are concerned, check out ''www.factcheck.org'' from the Annenberg Foundation.

[urnot]

Republican Principles have been borrowed from their historical brethern.


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
-- Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler''''s propaganda minister

However, McCain has raised the art of the BIG LIE to a new level.

Shame.

[dmgenet]

Bush and his gang used the old Hitler tactic of the "Big Lie". It worked again and most of the media (except McClatchy) swallowed the inconsistencies, double talk, and lies, hook line and sinker.

Remember, believe 1/2 of what you read and nothing of what you hear. The truth is out there but YOU have to piece it together. The Republicans rely on the electorate being lazy. We are to blame as much as the Bush cabal.

[jjorcutt]

mbourn...Oh come on! Your posting wikipedia as your proof that Al Queda existed in Iraq before we ousted Saddam. First of all it doesn''t say that Al Queda came into Iraq after the invasion. Second it is well documented that Wikipedia can be less than perfect since it can be manipulated by people such as yourself in order to bolster your position. I suggest you post with more proof that Al Queda existed in Iraq BEFORE the invasion.

[mbourn2]

SEE!!! This is an example of what I don''''t get about you republicans. You want to engage in the political debate, but you refuse to get informed. Anyone who has paid even the leasts bit of attention knows that Saddam and Al Queda were staunch enemies. There was no Al Queda in Iraq until we took out their enemy, and if Saddam were still in power there would still be no Al Queda in Iraq!!

GET INFORMED!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by im4honesty at 10:53 AM : Sep 18, 2008

If you had bothered to do even a little research on this you would have found that there significant debate on this issue. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you will have to excuse me if I do not come to the same conclusions as you. I would suggest you "get informed".

Al-Qaeda in Iraq - From Wikipedia
AQI is one of Iraq''s most feared militant organisations and many experts regard it as the United States'' most formidable enemy in the country.[6][7] Others suggest that the threat posed by AQI is exaggerated and some scholars claim that a "heavy focus on al-Qaeda obscures a much more complicated situation on the ground."

[jmmalone2]

Now can we vote for Obama Pleaseeeee?
Don''t let race get in your way of right minded thinking.

From NBC''s Mark Murray
In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, Nebraska

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) suggested that Palin doesn''t have the foreign-policy experience to be president. "''She doesn''t have any foreign policy credentials,'' Hagel said in an interview. ''You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don''t know what you can say. You can''t say anything.''"

Check out this other Hagel line: "''I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, "I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,"'' he said. ''That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.''"

And this one: "''I think it''s a stretch to, in any way, to say that she''s got the experience to be president of the United States,'' Hagel said."

[katina408]

Obama''s judgement and foresight have been very keen and based on fact and reflection something that Bush and now McCain seem sorely in need of. McCain sticks to rote learned cliches (notice how he is lost without a teleprompter) giving one the feeling that he''s vacuous and empty. If Obama''s style of "stuttering" annoys people, it''s probably because he''s thinking (remember he was trained at Harvard) and pondering his answer before spouting out a learned line that his advisors fed him knowing that it would please the ignorant populace. McCain''s poorly honed intellectual skills proven by his lackluster performance at his military academy and there beyond bode ill for our country. Palin''s past as a beauty queen and an extreme religious fanatic (her Wasilla church wanted to convert Jews to Christianity?), also make me cringe at the prospect that she may one day be leading this great country. Like Garrison Keillor (read Moose on the Loose in Palin Country), I feel like "lighting out for the territories" and escaping the political frenzy where the greedy lords of flies will prevail yet once again.

[jjorcutt]

I''m tired of this question about why we haven''t been attacked. I''ll tell you why because it''s a hell of alot easier to go to Iraq and kill Americans there than here in the USA. In fact I would say we have been attacked to the tune of over 4000 deaths since the start of the Iraq war.

[docpeter1953]

Posted on another CBS comment section

"If we know one thing about Al Qaeda they are consistent to a pattern of attacks and targets. They have greeted every new American President since Bill Clinton with a U.S. Terrorist attack in the President''''s first year in office, Bill Clinton in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombings, and again with George W Bush 2001 with the 9/11 attacks.

Interestingly enough the pattern continues with an attack in Yemen in the last year of the Presidents Term, Bill Clinton in the 2000 Bombing of the U.S.S Cole and now in 2008 with the U.S. Embassy in Yemen.

Going deeper into the warning signs is the intelligence that Al Qaeda has stopped funding the insurgency into Iraq and pulling out other resources, which simply leads me to conclude that an attack on U.S. soil in 2009 is extremely likely.

Posted by DVSC2008 at 08:02 AM : Sep 18, 2008
________________

Sounds fairly accurate and precise/concise to me. Guess we can expect another attack on the USA in 2009, somewhere. Unfortunately the new Pres. will take the fall for this one also.

[im4honesty]

Can anyone seriously believe that if we had dumped ALL our resources into Afghanistan and neglected Iraq that we would not still be facing these same groups only they would be staging out of Iraq rather than Afghanistan and they would have the financial and military support of an intact Iraq army and government backing them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mbourn2


SEE!!! This is an example of what I don''t get about you republicans. You want to engage in the political debate, but you refuse to get informed. Anyone who has paid even the leasts bit of attention knows that Saddam and Al Queda were staunch enemies. There was no Al Queda in Iraq until we took out their enemy, and if Saddam were still in power there would still be no Al Queda in Iraq!!

GET INFORMED!!