Clinton: Terrorist attack would help GOP

[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?

I am really growing to abhor her....and her contemporaries aren't liking it much either.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who is also competing for the Democratic nomination, issued a statement Friday afternoon calling Clinton's remark "tasteless."

"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," he said.

New Mexico Bill Richardson, another Democratic presidential candidate, disparaged Clinton's remark.

"We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Gov Richardson in a written statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...ism/index.html

[CaramonLS]

From what I gather from the article, she is implying she is better because she isn't a republican, and the world has been made significantly more dangerous/vulnerable to terrorist attacks because of them.

Not sure why she would be the best choice among just the dems, though. The article doesn't list anything she said after that comment.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

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.

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!!!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Ron Paul for President!!!

I can't believe I agree with Lanny on the off topic board!

[Flash Walken]

How do you feel about Ron Paul being a pro-life crusader, lanny?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

It's a tasteless thing to say, sure. Politically unwise, definitely. (fatally so? Only time will tell)

But is she completely wrong? I'm not defending here in a political sense--she's my least favourite of the democratic candidates, for a variety of reasons unrelated to this latest gaffe. But isn't it pretty much true that the GOP has benefited from the threat of global terrorism? Indeed--they USED the threat of international terrorism to rally support for a war that they began planning before 9/11. What's more cynical--exploiting tragedy for political ends, or calling someone else out on their having done so in the past.

Maybe it's just one of those true things that politicians shouldn't say. On the other hand, I personally wonder if she's wrong--in the sense that another attack would make people wonder if the GOP are the right guys to protect us after all....

[badnarik]

Ron Paul is pro-life but thinks that states should be able to make their own laws instead of having a blanket federal law.

I can't argue with Hillary's statement about the GOP but it seems a bit strange that she voted for the war.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

How do you feel about Ron Paul being a pro-life crusader, lanny?

No politician is perfect and no political agenda is perfect either, so you take the good with the bad. IIRC, Paul did say that he is pro-life, but would not pursue the repeal of Roe v. Wade, so he's not that much of a whack job from that perspective. I have no problem supporting a guy who is pro-life, as long as he respects my belief in pro-choice and leaves the power to the state to decide. Here's a link to more on Paul's agenda.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

I can't argue with Hillary's statement about the GOP but it seems a bit strange that she voted for the war.

This is really her major problem. It was a politically motivated vote at the time, and it's coming back to bite her in the you-know-where now. It's too bad, really. If the Dems had shown some balls and voted their consciences in 2002, they'd probably be looking at better odds than a meatball in a dog pound now. As it stands, I'll take the meatball.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This is really her major problem. It was a politically motivated vote at the time, and it's coming back to bite her in the you-know-where now. It's too bad, really. If the Dems had shown some balls and voted their consciences in 2002, they'd probably be looking at better odds than a meatball in a dog pound now. As it stands, I'll take the meatball.

You're assuming two things here:

1) they have consciences,
and
2) They voted against them.

It's not like her husband didn't orchestrate a bombing campaign of his own.

[Displaced Flames fan]

She's got it wrong.

A terrorist attack now would help the democrats. IMHO.

A terrorist attack on US soil today tells me that the current leadership isn't even handling the one issue nobody can hammer them on (no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11). To me, that kind of let down might push fence sitters the other way. I don't remember any Democrats saying "I will be weak on homeland security and terrorists".

That said, I'm not ignorant enough to believe that if the Bush administration can't handle something, no Republican administration can.

[Azure]

Continuation of the the subject...

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/oba...007-08-24.html

A top adviser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Friday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination, is obsessed “with what she calls the Republican attack machine.”

“I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again,” said Obama adviser David Axelrod. He added that Obama could break “the sort of decades-long battle we’ve had over this jagged divide — red state, blue state, American against American — and try to bring people together and attract disaffected Republicans and attract independent voters so that we could build not just a victory, but a governing coalition in this country.”

Saying all the right things....

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Continuation of the the subject...

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/oba...007-08-24.html



Saying all the right things....

I've been waiting for someone to say the word UNIFY.

Well done Senator. You have my attention.