Some answers to Sen. Clinton's questions

Sen. Clinton proposes some interesting questions. But like a lot of recent comments they trade logic for rhetoric. For starters, a statement that has gone unchallenged by anyone since the beginning is that Sen. Obama never held a meeting on Afghanistan in his Foreign Affairs sub-committee. The assumption, of course, is that he has neglected his duty. The problem is that he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs. Something that is regularly handled by the entire committee. Not to mention, that Afghanistan is in Central/Southwest Asia.
So I took these comments as an opportunity for some mental exercise about speech writing, foreign affairs, etc.
Fellow bloggers, Obama supporters, if I may answer by proxy some of the questions (feel free to answer others)(full disclosure, I am in no way what-so-ever attached in any capacity to any campaign, but I will take offers):

Will you stand by your definitive commitment to removing all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months, or will you, as your former advisor said, not rely on "some plan" you "crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator?"

Obama should say: I stand by my commitment to redeploy troops from Iraq. I also plan to recall all non-military contractors. The fact of the matter is, and Sen. Clinton is as aware of this as I, that there are a lot of things that Pres Bush has hidden from Congress, the American People and the World. Will I withdraw the troops, yes. Do I have all of the facts, NO.

Do you regret that you have never held any substantive hearings on Afghanistan or any other subject, since you became chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs in January 2007?

Mr. Obama should answer: No, because Afganistan is in Southwest Asia, and not covered by my committee. I think it is important to have a President who not only knows geography, but the limit and scope of Presidential power and authority.

Do you agree with General McPeak that you are more qualified to be commander in chief because you don't "go on television and have crying fits?" Are you prepared to remove General McPeak from your campaign for what is viewed by many as a sexist comment?

Sen. Obama's reply: "I do not agree with that and you know it’s regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this focused on the issues. That’s what this campaign should be about," Sen. Clinton's "... campaign staff seems to have forgotten her(sic) pledge. We have not...And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks..."

Are you still willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of an Obama administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? Are there any circumstances in which you would not conduct such meetings?

Sen Obama should say something like this: Am I willing, Yes. Because, the ideals of this country are greater than hubris and pride. Now more than ever before we are globally connected. For the first time, in my life, the United States is viewed negatively by a majority of people in the world. As President, as a Senator, as a Citizen, I pledge to do the most patriotic thing, I pledge to make new friends. I pledge to once more make the Unites States the beacon of freedom and hope that has inspired people for hundreds of years. Words, make a difference, they always have. Words, put us on the moon. Words, committed us to WWII. Words, gave us a dream. So if my words to change inspire these leaders, all the better. But if not, I will do the hard thing. I will meet with them and give actions to my words. We have nothing to fear and nothing to loose by talking with these countries, and everything to gain. We now have proof what 8 years of silence and bullying will do. Lets see what 4 years of talking, and diplomacy can do, and then leave it to the people to decide. We know the old ways, now is the opportunity to try something new.

As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it's legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?

There is no test to be President. I am running to be elected President of the United States. I believe it is important to have visited countries overseas. I have had the unique opportunity to spend many years overseas. It has made me love this country even more. The time to think of NATO countries as the most important in the world is past. It is an old and Dangerous way of thinking. We need to embrace all countries, regardless of whether they are NATO or not. As President I plan to visit not just our close allies in NATO, but also India and China, the emerging powers in Asia. Brazil, one of the fastest growing countries in the world. Now, more than anytime in our history we are all connected. It is time we come together, for the betterment of all mankind.

Earlier in the campaign you were asked how you would respond to a terrorist attack on two cities in the United States. You talked about the need for an effective emergency response but were initially unclear about the need for a military response. What do you think that says about your readiness to be Commander-in-Chief?

Obama should say something like this: I think it says I am ready to be President of the United States. A President unwilling to sacrifice our freedom, or judgment in Knee-jerk reactions of revenge. My first commitment is to the people of the United States. The fact is, that our national ability to not only prevent an attack, but respond to one has been severly compromised by this horrible Iraqi War. That is why I commit to redeploying our forces, and refocusing our priorities at home. If we are attacked again, it will be because, Pres Bush, engaged us and has stuck us in Iraq, we are less safe and less prepared because of that.

You publicly broadcast your willingness to attack Pakistan unilaterally, a statement which caused unrest in that country. Recognizing that we need to combat terrorism wherever it exists, do you wish you would have made your comments in a way that didn't cause unrest?

Sen Obama, says something like this: To suggest I caused unrest in Pakistan is not only the height of arrogance, I don't think I have that kind of power. Being ahead in delegates, and winning more states, and filling stadiums is one thing, but saying a few words and causing trouble in another country, well I as a Christian, I was brought up to believe that there is only one person who has that type of power. The unrest in Pakistan is troubling, but it shows a profound lack of understanding in foreign policy, to suggest I caused it. I proposed a broad plan, a plan that the CIA recently endorsed through not only action but success. The American people need to understand that the only terrorists in Iraq, are the ones we have created. We have ignored Afghanistan and Pakistan at not just our own peril. Pakistan is facing radical elements trying to destabilize the country. Afghanistan is facing a resurgent Taliban. I am very concerned about that, that is why I want to redeploy our forces. So we can better combat these radicals. A long time ago, we mad a promise to help the people of Afghanistan. 4 Preisdents have failed to uphold that commitment, and the world has suffered. I will not be the 5th, I will do right by the people of Afghanistan, just like I will do right by the people of the United States of America. I will do right by big states,and small states, red states and blue states, I will do right by you, because you are doing right by yourself.