It's Worse Than I Thought...

Check this out. The majority of the candidates for president on the Democrat side don't even believe a war on terror exists.

JASmius adds: You could tell that from the responses to this question:

RUSH: We have the Obama bite. I don't have the actual question, so I'm going to have to paraphrase it. Brian Williams says, "God forbid," a million times, "if tonight we're sitting here and two US cities are obliterated by al-Qaeda attacks, what would you do?"

Now to any normal person, the answer to that question is a no-brainer: "I'd waste the [bleeper-bleepers] and any country that helped them do it." Or, as President Bush put it from atop the Ground Zero rubble on September 14, 2001, "The people who knocked down these buildings will hear from ALL of us soon!" It's viscerally instinctive; it should require no conscious thought, much less equivocating calculation.

Now look at to Barack Obama's answer:

OBAMA: The first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we 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.

Huh? The premise of this question is its respondent is the President of the United States, not Tommy Lee Jones in Volcano. First responders would be local, not federal. This is like saying that if somebody punched Obama in the nose, the first thing he'd do is find the nearest box of Kleenex to wipe up the blood. But in the meantime, the puncher is still right there, throwing more blows from where the first one came. Which means that he'd be better advised to skip Kleenex and move straight to hunting for a body cast. Or, better yet, start throwing blows of his own.

Fat chance. This is the Democrat Party we're talking about. Look at what the Los Angeles Times' "magic negro" said he'd do next:

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. But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast.

Isn't the time to make sure we've got good intelligence before two of our cities get wasted? And aren't Democrats the ones who have been anti-intelligence for over thirty years, going all the way back to the infamous Church Committee of the early 1970s that demolished the CIA into the panty-wasteland of incompetence, leftish ideological hackery, and bureaucratized insurrection it is today?

But leave that aside for a moment. Isn't that the most Carterized pronouncement you've ever seen? It's a declaration of paralysis. A President Obama would do NOTHING until he was ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE about who BLEW TO MERRY HELL TWO AMERICAN CITIES, killing and maiming HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CIVILIANS - as well as WHY they had done so. That's what would matter to him, because, after all, al Qaeda - the specifically identified perpetrators in the question's premise, remember - may have had legitimate reasons for doing so - i.e, we brought this attack on ourselves, perhaps even deserved it. And the "world community" might agree with al Qaeda's reasons (or be scared pissless to object to them), and God for- ever-loving-bid that we do ANYTHING to "offend" the "world community." Like, you know, existing, or defending ourselves, or saving their worthless sociopacifistic asses from the same fate.

The best part of graf #2? "...we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network." Kind of like saying, "I might take potentially take some lighter fluid, pour it on my nutsack, and aim an activated blowtorch at it." Such warrior bravado! Won't make anybody forget "Bring...them...on!" anytime soon. Which was, of course, Obama's deliberate intent. Beats me why he even tacked that sentence on, since it's beyond clear that it was a rhetorical afterthought he would never actually pursue.

Oh, Obama still wasn't finished with the ponderous gum-flapping. Seemingly unaware that he was digging himself into a hole, much less how deep it was getting, he, er, soldiered onwards:

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 relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

The only "talk" we, the people, would want to hear is how soon we were going to retaliate, and a resounding, "If the 'international community' doesn't like it, they can kiss my 'magic negro' ass!"

A good follow-up question for Brian Williams to have asked is just how he would expect to "strengthen alliances" with the "international community" after the second craven American retreat in three decades. After Vietnam and then Iraq, why would any country tie its fortunes and sacred honor - and survival - to a so-called "superpower" so completely unreliable and undependable? That backstabs allies and runs out on them the moment the fortunes of war become the slightest bit inconvenient? That is seemingly incapable of understanding that to be a superpower you have to be willing to USE that power in defense of your own interests AND those of your allies - whether they like it or not?

A second follow-up would have brought the house down: "Do you really believe that the United States miliary can't beat a bunch of rag-tag ragheads? Or is it that you don't WANT to beat them?"

Now you know another reason besides his not-ready-for-prime-time callowness why Barack Obama will never be president of the United States. Ditto John Edwards, whose answer was equally as pathetic.

Please note, however, the one Donk contender on that stage whose PR ear was not made of tin:

HILLARY: 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.

Her answer was still weak. "Responding" instead of pre-empting, the "swiftly as prudent" qualifier that emasculates the very idea of responding, and she followed up this preface with some trademark Bush-bashing to triangulate back toward the Dems' Fifth-Column/Vichyistic base. But Mrs. Clinton was the only human being in that so-called "debate" who even hinted at the idea of retaliating in the wake of what would be far and away the worst attack against the United States in its history.

What does this indicate? Well, what it doesn't indicate is that she would actually do what she said in her answer. C'mon, Hillary Clinton is so far to the left she makes the rest of the so-called Dem presidential field look like refugees from the John Birch Society. She'd react the same way Barack Obama would - she just was not dunderheaded enough to actually publicly admit it.

What it indicates is that Mrs. Clinton knows she's got the nomination in the bag and is speaking in general election campaign mode. She's not going to do or say anything that her GOP sacrificial goat can dig up and use against her a year and a half from now. It also foreshadows her selection of Senator Obama as her running mate, as a sop to that same kook fringe base and a "first African-American on a major party ticket" novelty gesture.

And it reinforces my conviction that a Clinton restoration is inevitable.

Not to Jeremiah-ize myself or anything, but I wonder if anybody besides me realizes the abyss America is hurtling toward, and how perilously close we already are to the edge of that cliff.

UPDATE: Check out the Sunday Day By Day comic in the sidebar. Damon's nightmare is a rapidly approaching reality.