I just had the displeasure of reading a Charles Krauthammer column in which he excoriates Barack Obama for recent foreign-policy gaffes, including this:

During the April 26 South Carolina candidates’ debate, Brian Williams asked what kind of change in the U.S. military posture abroad Obama would order in response to a hypothetical al-Qaida strike on two American cities.

Obama’s answer: “Well, the first thing we would have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response — something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.” …

When the same question came to Hillary, she again pounced: “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.” Retaliatory attack did not come up in Obama’s 200-word meander into multilateralism and intelligence gathering.

Which begs a question:

Let’s say there’s an al-Qaeda attack on two American cities tomorrow. Who does Hillary - who does Krauthammer - attack in response?

Against whom do we direct the “retaliatory attack?” Some random nation that may or may not have had anything to do with the terrorist strike? Iran because hey, they’re Muslim extremists as well and, well, we’ve been itching to attack Iran anyway?

Pakistan, our dear ally? Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from but which also is a dear friend?

Obama’s response might have been a knee-jerk Bush-Katrina soundbyte that had nothing to do with nothing - but now, at this late date, does Krauthammer not understand, does Hillary not understand that in al-Qaeda, we are fighting a non-state actor, and thus the classic “retaliatory strike” against a state will not work as it has not worked?

Was Iraq not a “retalitatory strike” for 9/11? We see how well that’s worked out; would Krauthammer - would Hillary - really repeat the greatest strategic mistake in U.S. history?

There is an element of unreality to the neoconservative mindset, and I fear it has infected, to whatever degree, Hillary Clinton as well. Obama says he would not use nuclear weapons in a first-strike capacity against al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and Hillary takes him to task, saying: “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

So let me get this straight: Hillary reserves the right to nuke Pakistan or Afghanistan if she wants to?

This is the neoconservative madness; a nuclear first-strike, deemed moral because hey, we’re the United States of America, so anything we do is by defintion moral. This is how this nation becomes even more isolated on the world stage, not less; this is how this nation stokes the fires of Muslim extremism rather than tamping down upon it.

That Hillary and Krauthammer seem to agree on this path ought to give anyone who’s considering voting for Hillary pause. If the Republican Party’s greatest fumble in recent years has been foreign policy - as I absolutely believe it has been - how in the world does Hillary represent anything but the same, recklessly dangerous old?