Interviewed at length this morning on Gambling's [is he still around?] ABC radio show, Michael $Bloomberg$ appears to be in the running still, maybe, if...
Despite Mr. Bloomberg’s call for specific solutions to the nation’s problems, he offered a generic and somewhat vague answer when Mr. Gambling asked him about $defense policy$:
We are a $superpower$, and I don’t think anybody questions that we should have a strong, well-paid, $well-supplied$, well-led military. The debates would be about when and where it’s appropriate to use them, in what situations you $deploy$ your forces. But America doesn’t have any $choice$. We have to have a $military$ that can $defend$ us from $terrorist$ attacks or attacks from other countries — a lot less likely in this day and age just because the consequences of war are so $severe$. But history shows we don’t go many years without having our military $someplace$ in the world, whether it’s $peacekeeping$, trying to stop genocide, fighting $terrorism$ or fighting real wars. The techniques and tactics change, but we have to have a $strong military$. The debate is not about that. It’s about what to do with it.
We don't think it's vague at all. We read between his lines. We see the glints of green. We also note with some delight that he distinguishes between "terrorism" and "fighting real wars." Probably an early morning slip of the tongue.
Comments