Columnist George Will has a scenario he thinks voters may use as they measure presidential candidates’ readiness on national security. This is how he phrased it recently on ABC’s “This Week”: “Nightmare scenario. You’re the security adviser. You’re awakened in the middle of the night. You have three minutes to get the details of an attack coming on the United States. Then the president, who you notify, has four minutes to answer. That’s seven minutes. Which candidate fits the seven-minute question?”
OK, bloggers, which 2008 wannabe would perform best?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- situveux1 on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
45 Comments
I’d say McCain and Clinton.
But I’m not a fan of McCain right now at all.
I don’t accept Geo. Wills’ model for choosing a president. While his model does make me remember Pres. Bush’s “deer-in-the-headlights” reaction during the 9-11 disaster when he was sitting in the kindergarten class, I think we also need a president who is capable of analyzing carefully many different national defense reactions in a time of crisis. For example, the ability of John F. Kennedy to find a proper path during the Cuban Missile Crisis is a testament to his intelligence and self-confidence. But those decisions were made over the course of several weeks, with the critical crisis involving several days. With the fate of the planet on his shoulders, he made the right decision.
Sometimes, it is more difficult to make the correct decision when you have several days or weeks to analyze and reanalyze the options, while being pressured by enemies, and domestic policy advisors, as opposed to 7 minutes.
I agree with Kelly. This is an unrealistic hypothetical, except for one terrifying scenario. However, regardless of the minute possibility of this happening, for anything like George Will’s supposition to occur, if it were and no one foresaw the possibility beforehand, it would take more than four minutes for the Commander-in-Chief to pull his/her head out his/her respective ass. So, the question is moot.
Given that sceanrio has about a 00000.1% chance of happening the fact is that people are not going to elect a President based on it.
In that situation you need someone who will focus on the security threat, not political ramifications. Someone who stops to think about politics is more likely to underact or overact.
The person who stops to worry about how their actions are percieved is more likely to make a bad decision.
Kelly’s point that the problems you have to stew over for weeks or months with people pressuring you from all sides with different opinions on a course of action would be the really tough ones.
Who’s the right person? Beats me.
Well, in the world of high finance, Kev, one would go a bit further with your 0.1% probability.
To be truly responsible to one’s stockholders — or citizens if you like — one would need to base one’s decision on an expected outcome rather than mere probability. In this case the outcomes are two: life carries on as before, or life as we know it ends (loss of liberty, perhaps chaos; in the worst and most extreme case, catostrophic loss of American lives, say anything north of 10%) (if the American population were reduced by 10% due to war, then it could be accurately said we were decimated by war).
A 0.1% chance of decimation seems far more meaningful to me than a 0.1% chance of catching the flu. I mean, the outcomes are much so different that writing each off based solely on probability seems a little reckless. After all, decimating the American population is a waaay bigger deal than me catching the flu.
If you reject Will’s construct, then you’re in effect saying that 0.1% x 10% x 300,000,000 = 30,000 American lives is the number where, ceteris paribus, you’re indifferent to the candidate who, given a 7 minute constraint, makes the correct decision and one who makes the wrong decision.
Note that 9/11 resulted in less than 3,000 deaths and we as a nation have certainly based our entire foreign policy on this one act for the past 5.5 years.
Because the consequences of such a decision are so stark (literally life for all or death/loss of liberty/chaos for all), I think Will’s scenario holds enough weight to be relevant. Perhaps not dominant, but relevant.
Oh, and I’m with political_mom: McCain and Clinton.
Pedant
I disagree with you on Clinton. She is a pure political animal, everything is a political decision, everything must be weighed with political ramifications in mind. I don’t think she could put that mindset aside and make a decision based on the proper criteria.
Well, I disagree.
She’s a mother, and a good one. Such women are usually able to separate the meaningful from the meaningless almost instantly.
She’s also smart as hell.
When it comes to decision making, smart moms are hard to beat.
In my opinion, Clinton would probably fall roughly in the 95th percentile (correct decision) if one laid out all Americans given Will’s construct. McCain probably something similar.
Interesting take Pedant. Being a good mother is a qualification toward being in charge of our national security. Hmm….
It’s a silly question but that’s what we do here. I suppose I would pick Guiliani in that circumstance, because he’s decisive, he has been tested, and passed that test with flying colors.
Rudy my pick too.
Clinton? Because she’s a mother? You gotta be kiddin me. Well! At least I know who is voting for Clinton this election.
A very important part of the question was not asked – being prepared in the first place with proceedures. If a tornado were bearing down on Wichita we don’t have time to formulate a plan, dig shelters, and erect sirens. We have already done that. Similar with this – we should have proceedures in place – scramble jets for example – to respond. In fact, some of this – getting the jets airborne – should be done concurrently with waking up the CiC.
I think this is in reference to the Bush in the classroom senerio.
ing a good mother is a qualification toward being in charge of our national security. Hmm….Posted by: outlander | February 24, 2007 at 07:45 AM
Clinton? Because she’s a mother? You gotta be kiddin me. Well!Posted by: Joe Williams | February 24, 2007 at 07:49 AM
She’s also smart as hell.
When it comes to decision making, smart moms are hard to beat.Posted by: Pedant | February 24, 2007 at 07:29 AM
It’s the combination of smart AND a good mom that’s relevant here.
Just sayin’ that (again) for those who are either reading challenged or intimidated by female brains. You know who you are.
Using the same logic, being an experienced husband, i.e., when to open your mouth, when to keep it closed, reading “between the line” to determine what is said vs. what is meant, etc., would make a good qualification. Hell, Rudy, therefore, is a shoo-in. He’s done it three times! :)
didn’t the President spend 7 minutes reading my pet goat?
I think he sat there and pissed his pants, of course he didn’t have a 7 minute warning. This was just his reaction to an attack.
Here’s a better test, We have a catastrophic hurricane the president anticipates/prepares for it. Who’d react within say a week. Who’d be the better president?
rm – my test: Forget the anniversary. Survive. Now you are qualified to negotiate Middle east peace!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Just remember, Ben, in those immortal words of Kobe Bryant, “Nothing says, ‘I’m sorry’ like a 4.5 carat diamond!” ;)
I wish ABC would give 7 minutes of thought to firing the sniveling George Will….and then fire him. The guy is so smart yet so dumb.
Here’s a test – we have a war in Iraq, American’s dying – back home – the President and his congressional leaders are pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. How many minutes would it take for yuo to realize you are a cowardly wus?
I am unable to see the scenario link.
I don’t think I need to.
I cannot think of a crisis that requires resolution in 7 minutes or less. Save an incoming inter continental ballistic missile. And that of course is unlikely.
SO, I don’t think we need a reactionary President. There is politics in that too ya know. “What is the type A reaction?” is the political thinking. “I (America) must not be seen as weak!”
An assumed reptile brain response to an unlikely event is a poor way to choose a leader who will need the ability to solve far more realistic and deep issues.
On a different note, I am unhappy with the right wing road ABC is on of late. This is the network that aired the propoganda lie “Path to 911″. It is also the network that gives a voice to that kook John Stossel and now this from ultra winger George Will. It may be that ABC can no longer be called objective in their news and political coverage….
Oh I forgot my choice.
Global climate change is a far more realistic problem than the one WIll provides.
My choice is Al Gore.
george Wills been on abc since I was i kid and john stossel isn’t a right winger hes a libertarian, im pretty sure that conseveratives and liberatrians dont agree on most issues.
AH – I get it now. “Objective” means “agrees with JR.”P-lease. Do you really think the world revolves around you, JR? Could it possibly be that – sit down now, this is shocking – YOU carry biases too?
On to the subject at hand.
Yea – this is a pretty silly scenario, except – like a previous poster, I want someone who will put political considerations aside and do what they believe is the right thing. Someone who knows the difference between campaigning and governing, who isn’t in love with the job for the job’s sake.Both Clinton and McCain fail that test; they are political animals, through and through.
Rudy probably fits that bill.Richardson? Don’t know enough yet, but my first reaction is would fit that bill as well.Obama? Not ready for prime time – or ready to face this scenario. And right now, too much political calculation.Edwards? Even more political than Clinton, steeped in the phony populist persona.
Obama would try to articulate his way through it passing right by the expiration of allowed time.
You have your opinion Pendent. I disagree.
But to each their own.
For the most part, I’m with kelly, rm and JR on this one.
Without details, Will’s question is a vapid one. There are vanishingly few situations where a four minute decision is even possible, let alone necessary and, without knowing what calamity is being addressed (missles? 9-11? tsunami? power-plant meltdown?), the presumption that swift action alone is the determinant of presidential fitness is patently ludicrous. Sometimes the swift decision is a sign of an impulsive and rash “decider.”
But it IS necessary in emergencies to have a president who will jump into action and do SOMETHING–seven minute timeline or not–rather than, say, spend that seven minutes reading “My Pet Goat.”
Or flat-out panic.
With most of the candidates, we can’t really say for sure–but that’s not the same as concluding they don’t “have it.” We just don’t know.
Guiliani was a admirably together control-freak during the rapid-fire chaos of 9-11. John McCain escaped from a damaged aircraft before it blew up, but that’s not quite the same issue (saving one’s ass is kinda instinctive). If we’re going by known facts rather than the “gut,” Guiliani is only one I’m aware of in the pack who’s guaranteed to fit the bill.
But for similarly factual reasons, I don’t like or trust him.
P.S. If anyone wants to claim McCain’s combat experience, well, okay, but. . .details, please. Hanoi Hilton doesn’t count.
Mega dittos, Kelly.
This is pure George Will–he knows he can’t keep the sheeple voting RepubliCON unless they’re scared of all kinds of BS scenarios.
There’s absolutely NO national security threat that requires a seven minute decision.
The security threats that matter–like Al Qaeda–were DECADES in the making, and it all started when the United States stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and left them there after promising to pull them out.
“They won’t be there one day longer than absolutely necessary,” intoning lying POS Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.
The rest is history.
We don’t need a leader who can make snap decisions. We need a leader who isn’t bought and paid for by big corporate interests like GW is and has been from day one.
We need a leader who is interested in the COMMON GOOD instead of his CRONIES’ GOOD.
Rage–
It didn’t bother you the way Giuliana gobbled up face time on camera while bodies were THUNKING! to their ghastly and grisly deaths behind him.
Silly me, I would have been trying to save the people trapped in the towering infernos.
I would have done something.
Mission control engineers brought Apollo 13 home when they were running out of O2 by using old wire and duct tape, but Giuliana couldn’t wrap his mind around how to get people out of a burning building with all the resources of the United States behind him.
He looked very manly on camera though, didn’t he . . .
I would not trust Ghoul-iani to be mayor of the City of Wichita. He is a sleaze from the same mold that produced Gingrich. God help us all if, through hook or crook, he becomes president.
Remember that this Clinton is a woman and women are not as good at facts and logic. That is why they make lousy lawyers for the most part. Women operate more on emotion than logic. They think more with their hearts while men think more with their heads. My guessing is that Mrs Clinton would probably weep before doing anything.
I believe in a leader for the common good. Let’s send thinkers like Captain Vomit mouth to the death camps and exterminate them! We don’t need thinkers like Captain Vomit that smell a rose and spend the next 10 years complaining about the thorns! Capn Vomit not worth the squeeze coming out of a dogs anal sack!
Gee Roscoe, you sure are vitriolic tonight! You would do Hitler proud!
Roscoe, did you get beat up a lot when you were a kid?
Thank God, Roscoe is on the other side.
THEY get to claim him . . .
“Remember that this Clinton is a woman and women are not as good at facts and logic.”
Kev, back your ass up a little and shut your mouth so you can listen.
(Dang, I’m in a bitchy mood!)
Women aren’t as good at facts or logic? Where HAS your head been?
Men are known to go from point A to point B, always keeping in mind their desired outcome.
But desired outcome can often not be reached by a point A to B procession. Linear thinking is not always the best course of action. ALL possibilities need to be looked at, weighed, studied. Whether this takes place in 4 minutes or in 4 weeks, it still is a MUST.
Please remember many of the great women in history. I’ll start you off with Marie Curie, Indira Gandhi, etc., and keep in mind that each one of them had to deal with your kind of typical anti-women mindset.
Please tell me the George W. Bush used logics in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. When did he listen to the facts presented to him by those who knew? When did logic ever enter into it?
“…while men think more with their heads.”
Yes, but the real question is WHICH HEAD?
I don’t think there is any difference between men and women when it comes to leadership or anything else besides physical aspects and that we use different restrooms.
So I think it’s an incorrect to think that women have any shortcomings when it comes to decision making or their competance for leadership. But I also think it is incorrect to upgrade women to say they have superior abilities of the same requirements just because you’re a mother.
But again! For each their own.
Joe,
Only that mothers are the ones who do the true “leading” of their children, as a rule. Women are caretakers.
Nor do I believe that women think better than men. They just think in a different way, and I believe that’s what Kev was really saying, only he hit one of my hot buttons. *grin*
Where’s Pat Paulsen when you really really need him !!!
Nader 08
All of you should be politicians because you most certainly know how to side-step a question. The ORIGINAL question posed by Ms. Holman was which candidate would fit the seven minute scenario?
This current administration has blindly and self-servingly invaded a country with no clear plan. Yes, we captured and hung the bad guy…. the WRONG bad guy. Plus, they have an even more unclear exit plan, except to rack up the carnage. A Democrat ticket will win next November.
The person I would feel most comfortable in a situation of this gravity is Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico with Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his Vice-President. Of all the candidates from both major parties so far, he possesses the diplomatic international experience, combined with a strong and unruffled demeanor to take on, God forbid, such a gut-rendering decision. Remember, Mayor Giuliani’s 9-11 decisions were after the act, not to belittle what he did. Aside from being evrything a Reflublican conventionally is not, I see nothing from him that would make him a viable candidate. Sen. Mc Cain had his moment in the sun and I don’t think the country wants a hawk in the White House anymore. Mitt Romney?? There isn’t room in the White House for all of his wives! OK, I couldn’t help that one!
To this point, Gov. Richardson has quietly avoided the spotlight so as to thoughtfully organize his campaign. Trunks, I’m afraid you’ll be the homely girl at this dance.
Laura calls Bush the minute man! Can he run again?
“Rage–” blah blah blah
Guiliani acted decisely during the first moments of a genuine crises. This is documented. But, as I implied above and will now say, judging on that alone is a pretty stupid way to choose a president.
You know (or SHOULD know, if you don’t have your head up your ass) that I’m not and have never been any more of a Guiliani fan than you.
Guiliani’s shameless self-promotion is something I’ve ALSO criticized, on this forum no less.
The remainder of your boorish rant plainly doesn’t even deserve the dignity of acknowledgment.