WWBYD? I'm on-board with Kevin's proposed deal, which dictates that "[d]ebate moderators agree to stop asking moronic questions and presidential candidates agree to actually answer the questions they do ask." Done and done. But I'm adding an addendum: "If a journalist can't think of a better answer, he can't criticize the one a candidate gives." Take Byron York's enormously hackish take on the proceedings. He's all atwitter because the Democrats gave vague answers to Brian Williams when he asked "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?� Obama says we'd have to find out if we "have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network." Edwards says "the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that.� The problem, according to York, is that Obama's answer "did not involve using the military" and "Edwards offered nothing on how the United States might strike back. " Well, then it's back to you Mr. York. Enlighten us as to the better answer. Because, as Brian Beutler points out, we're missing some key bits of information for planning military reprisals. Was the al Qaeda cell responsible based out of Cairo, Riyadh, London, or New Jersey? Assumedly, we're not going to flatten Trenton in response. So I'm genuinely curious: what's the correct answer here? Given that we don't know the circumstances of the attack, where it was conducted, whether the perpetrators are still alive, where they're based, or essentially anything besides "America attacked," what immediate changes in the US military posture overseas would York order? --Ezra Klein
