Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Hillary then says she would be the best candidate to deal with an attack among the Dems.
|
Why Hillary? What experience do you have that makes you any better choice in this scenario than the others? [/quote]
I think the Democrats would be the group to lead the battle on terrorism (there is no war, just like there is no war on drugs or hunger or poverty as has been claimed in the past by varying administrations). Traditional military, and invasion of countries well down the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, is not the way to fight terrorism or the threat of terrorism. Only by working cooperatively with all governments, making it socially unacceptable for terror as a tactic (it worked in Ireland), and then using the collective world intelligence community to root these s out and eliminate them quietly, will the tide turn. The public spectacle is what makes these guys' tactics efficient. Without the coverage, without the massive response, the effectivity of these animals is limited. Having an army on foreign soil does nothing but encourage terrorism and assist in the recruitment efforts. Did we not learn that from watching the Soviets flounder in Afghanistan? The Democrats have laid out a simple plan that relies on intelligence and covert ops rather than massive investment in troops and money.
Personally, I don't think Hillary is the person I would want leading this charge. I don't think she has the resolve to make the tough call when required. Her experience is also a major problem. We've seen what happens when we let a bunch of monkeys with no military experience run the show. We get tied up in a quagmire and spend a trillion dollars to only make the problems worse. If Clinton does win the Oval office, I hope she is smart enough to turn to an experienced military leader, like Anthony Zinni, to run the whole counter-terrorism operations, and appoint someone who actually knows something about terrorism to run the intelligence community. Other than that, she (or who ever is in office) should get the hell out of the way and let the professionals do their job.
Quote:
|
I am really growing to abhor her....and her contemporaries aren't liking it much either.
|
In full agreement there. I wish Hillary would just go away. She's as bad a candidate for the Dems as Guiliani is for the GOP. Both are a little loonie and would say anything to get themselves elected. Same thing with Mitt. Really, this is the absolute worse group of candidates I have seen in years. I would love to see someone show some resolve and stick with their platform. I guess that's why I think the best candidates are Ron Paul for the GOP and John Edwards for the Dems. Both have stayed on their platform and not waivered much at any time over the past decade. Both of those guys address important issues with a common sense approach, one that works for everyone. I'd have a tough time choosing between the two, but I think I would probably vote for Paul.
Ron Paul for President!!!