"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

Sadly, I think there is some truth to this, but she probably could have not said anything.

"should" not "could"

Had too many watching the Saints game last night.

True enough, Rovian October Surprises, and all.


Perhaps they can get Osama to release another timely tape?

Corky, what does this say about dems though? That is the really scary thing. Have the repubs really brainwashed people into thinking a dem couldn't handle a terror attack or a military campaign?

The R's have been the Daddy Party, up until GW f'ed that up for them, too.

I will find it funny if it is a woman D that overcomes that image.

I will find it funny if it is a woman D that overcomes that image.

This is what scares me because if there is a terrorist attack after she has been nominated there will be those who firmly believe a woman cannot be a military leader and then we end up with four more years of Bush-like politics and policies.

Gives me the shivers.

The worst part of this lunacy is that both 9/11 and any subsequent attack will have taken place while the Republicans sat in the White House and on 9/11 controlled both houses of Congress!

So the Democrats can't keep America safe, but the domestic attacks happen while Republicans are in control? Praytell what school of bassackward philosophy does this paradigm come from?

I saw what Dukakis said the other day, but I just passed it off to the effects of the fumes he breathed when riding in the famous tank, but what is Hillary's excuse? Why in the world would she further a Rovian paradox based on nothing but the Republican's ability to pass blame for everything that happens due to their own lack of focus and institutional imcompetence? Hasn't Bush's government and its rollback of civil liberties made us safer from potential attacks? Then why would an attack help those who would allow it to happen?

It makes ZERO sense, and I can't believe Hillary's buying into it.

Newsflash...It's time you guys found a new boogeyman, Rove has resigned.

I know the break-up will be hard for you mancrushers, but for christs' sake, he was called "turdblossom".

I don't know. The mid-east has had to deal with Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margeret Thatcher... no push-overs in that bunch.

Tony,

What she said has been a common theme for years now, nothing new.

I think that instead of saying this:

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

She should have said something to the effect of what Tony said. She is just perpetrating the myth instead of trying to show that it is just a myth. She should have pointed out that it is the republicans who got us where we are today and the notion that they are the only ones who can protect us is absolute garbage.

What she said has been a common theme for years now, nothing new.

Its been a common theme in forwarding the fallacy that Democrats don't have the stomach to fight terrorism and it shouldn't be coming from the party's leading Presidential candidate. It validates everything the Republicans try to portray as truth when the reality is no one knows what might happen at all. Its all speculation, not fact, so why forward it in the first place? Do you think rhetoric like this helps downticket candidates? No, its nothing but a wedge-issue tailor-made for Repub-o-bots to sputter-out regarding every Democratic candidate for any office.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

You guys want her to somehow magically change American perspective with the wave of a wand?

I am sure that, given more than a soundbite to respond, she would agree with you.

Try supporting your candidate by building him up, not nitpicking the other "guy".

Try supporting your candidate by building him up, not nitpicking the other "guy".





Posted by Corky at 2007-08-24 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag


Holy fucking shit this is rich. Out of your last 1,000 posts I'd wager 85% of them have been Rudy bashes.

It would be like me pleading for civility on the retort or complaining about the use of racial stereotypes!

Rudy is fair game, Chairmeister.

We are talking among the Dems here. I have yet to post anything bad about Obama that I can recall.

Gee, I bet I could not find an opposing analysis. What do you think?


I might find one that kept quotes in context, however, as she was talking about one province.

I might find one that kept quotes in context, however, as she was talking about one province.

No it wasn't. The quote was based on America compared to pre-9/11, not Iraq, and the experts disagree with her assessment nearly unanimously.

She spoke of the surge working belatedly in Anwar Province.

If she is of the opinion that some of the safety precautions we have taken have been helpful, being on the Armed Services Committee, that is her educated opinion.

The Democrat best positioned to do anything progressive at all is the one that can win.

TR

Your post mentioned the surge, as in Iraq, and her comments on that which were as I said, related to one province.


Truthfully though, if you are going to rely on the far-left pundits you keep quoting for opinions on how to get someone elected in this country, you are doomed to disappointment, I'm afraid.

92 percent - in other words, virtually all of them - agree that the War in Iraq has adversely affected our national security. That includes 84% of those who describe themselves as "conservative."

Now don't start going Joe or Rob on me! You are seeing only what you want to see. If there is one thing I don't do, its create controversy where none exists. I put the words into the proper context and you disagreed, then you incorrectly try to smear people making good-faith analogies and critiquing what candidates actually say and do. When did this become "far-left" unless you mean only those on the left pole have any relationship with actual truth?

I am doing nothing more than making the distinction between being a DC insider and in standing for, believing in, and actually supporting real change in government. I can't help it if the facts keep showing that Hillary is exercising more rhetoric than she stands for true fundamental change in the way our government works and responds to the people's own needs.

"We" should have been the tip-off. "We" are not Iraqis, so why would this be a reference to Iraqis?

That's like saying a bad economy is good for Dems.

This country is not two sides, repub and dem. We are one country with politicians who have seriously forgotten their duty. The only think we Americans have forgotten is the duty they are supposed to perform.

The funny thing is that people who live out in rural areas that have zero chance of ever being targetted by terrorists will say they voted for Bush for security reasons. While people who live in cities that might actually be attacked would feel safer with anyone else.

does anyone have a link to the osama bin laden video made right before the 2004 election?

(the one Karl Rove made)

Looks like Hillary is taking off the gloves.
We all know the Bush Administration thrives on the terror card and plays it to the hilt when poll numbers dip or he needs an extension of time for the war in Iraq.

I remember it was a Friday, only 4 days before we voted in the 2004 elections, and what pops up like a timed jack-in-the-box -- another Osama bin Ladin tape that flooded the airways. Sometimes I think bin-Ladin is on Bush's media payroll.

bin Ladin -- bin boring

And unlike Obama, Hillary won't confuse a study (as he did in the debate) with retaliation.

"The point, however, is that it's a mistake for any Democrat to amplify the bogus narrative in the first place."

But only if Hillary says it.

I think we get the point.

It makes ZERO sense, and I can't believe Hillary's buying into it.

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-08-24 10:44 A

Hillary is not an idiot. She is hedging her bet for all of the DR lefties, et al. You are mostly tools that will fall in line for her logic. JeffNDenmark will post the theory incessantly.... The U.S. will experience another terror attack on our state side soul at some point in time. It is inevitable. She can now claim (particularly since she put it on the record this early) that the Repubs let it happen so Americans would put them back in office. Hillary will SHOUT that the Repubs didn't stop the attack because they knew it would give them a better shot at the White House in '08. Place your bets........... I'll hold the money.

Newsflash...It's time you guys found a new boogeyman, Rove has resigned.

I know the break-up will be hard for you mancrushers, but for christs' sake, he was called "turdblossom".

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-08-24 10:46 AM

and you really believe he has left the stage? WE will stop worrying about Rovian Politics when Rove stops meddling in Politics!

How can we learn to forget about Karl Rove if he won't go away?

Lets see he was on "Meet the Press", "Fox News Sunday", "Face the Nation" doing the Karl Rove shuffle and two step...

Please Chairborne use your Troll powers and make him go away!

Wow! Hillary is starting to go down the Obama and Edwards path to the abyss. Terrorism is bad for ALL of American regardless of politcal party.

I think politically, a terrorist attack could be a major negative for Republicans because Bush has been saying that there have been no further terror attacks in the U.S. because of the Iraq War. If there was an attack on American soil, it would show a failure in the Bush Administration's handling of Homeland Security and all the many security snafu's that have been reported as well as the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden.

On the other side of the coin, the Democrats might get demolished because they have fought efforts to monitor phone and banking transactions to track terrorists, fought efforts to protect the border as seen in the illegal immigration bills and have been perceived as focusing more on attacking the Bush Administration than working with the Administration to fight terror.

Dennis Milligan, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, recently said, "I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Hillary is the only Democrat to bring up this subject other than Michael Dukakis. Need anymore really be said? This is the experience of winning twice? It doesn't look very experienced to me when Hillary borrows from the right's discredited talking points, but what do I know?

On the other side of the coin, the Democrats might get demolished because they have fought efforts to monitor phone and banking transactions to track terrorists, fought efforts to protect the border as seen in the illegal immigration bills and have been perceived as focusing more on attacking the Bush Administration than working with the Administration to fight terror.

Can anyone prove that these things have made us demonstrably safer than when they weren't used? And excuse me...Bush was the chief backer of the immigration bill, so you're saying he's trying to make us more vunerable afterall?

Hillary, most of us newspasper readers have said as much since the 9/11/01 Republican-engineered "crisis." The REAL patriots are the ones who saw something like this ego war coming BEFORE Bush's Saudi buddies tried protesting the Israeli occupation of Palestine by crashing a bunch of hijacked airliners. herm

Terror has always been fear-mongered by Rethugs.

The only way this is a story is because Hil said something we have all been saying, including TR, for years now.

Clinton/Bush, first or second, two sides to the same coin.

Nader, Bradley, Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, would lead people instead of groveling at the Corporate troughs. But , the Military-Industrial Complex has a lock on our Oligarchy.

Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.

Clinton's foreign-policy approach is ``very conventional,'' Brzezinski said. ``I don't think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.''

``There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs,'' he added. ``And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's relationship with the world.''

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.

They've used it as a tactic before and they still are. It is perfectly appropriate that Hillary speak up about the fact that the Republicans have used terrorism as a political weapon even as they have ignored the 9-11 Commission recommendations.

Spud disagrees with Hillaries primary assertion that another terrorist event on American soil will be neccessarily be good fer the GOPhers.

Dumbya was asleep at the switch the first time out and didn't reallystart to recieve the blame fer it that he should have until after the initial rally round the flag portion of the program was over. If another big ass event happens in the US will it be despite or because of Iraq?

Seriously, how does that scan?

Also, as Tony noted implicit in her argument is a tacit agreement with the assessment that Dems are "soft on Terror". That's an incorrect stereotype and Hill herself should not be spreading the meme even if indirectly.

Be Well.

Why is Clinton so eager to turn everything into a fight against Republicans? Oh goody, let's go back to a government paralyzed by Clinton partisanship. How about we get a President of the whole United States, not just the blue or red ones.

"Spud disagrees with Hillaries primary assertion that another terrorist event on American soil will be neccessarily be good fer the GOPhers."

Um, did I miss the part where most of the country stopped believing and saying that very same thing for the last few years without being accused of being complicit in the underlying fallacy?

I think I remember almost all the Libs here holding that view, talking about October Surprises, and being sure that the release of any material like bin Laden tapes worked to the advantage of the fear-mongerers?

Suddenly holding one of your own to a new standard because you think it spins their statements in an unflattering way in a Primary race is rather too convenient I think.

Hillary will SHOUT that the Repubs didn't stop the attack because they knew it would give them a better shot at the White House in '08. Place your bets........... I'll hold the money.


That's ALMOST right , ride_on. this is nearly brilliant on her part, because now it will be the MEDIA who will repeat her words in the event of an attack. "Hillary said exactly this", etc.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Clintons are smart cookies.

Billary's remarks only underscore the desperate nature of the democratic party in winning the white house. There is no other reason to make such a comment; and, no one will buy the excuse that Billary just slipped. After all, dems and libs are smarter than 'repugs' and 'neocons', no?

"Billary's remarks only underscore the desperate nature of the democratic party in winning the white house."

And George Bush's delusional, terror-based rhetoric underscores what? His desperation to stay in the WH for 8 years?

Please, don't be such a partisan hack.

In Bush's re-elction, Osama Bin Laden endorsed John Kerry by way of Aljezeera, but it didn't work. He might as well send his secret ballot by mail.

Hillary is afraid Al-Queda might endorse her.

Or if an attack happen before election, the nation might look to Giuliani as the obvious choice.