Clinton: Terrorism Will Give GOP "Advantage"

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

Read entire story here (password protected).

Comments

[RogerDier]

09:34 AM on 08/25/2007

It is interesting to read some of the views of the Desperate and Paranoid Right, who are busy as they can uttering a collective psuedo-gasp at what every pol (left or right, dem or GOP) knows: Terror is the only issue the GOP thinks will save them in 2008.

The GOP is vainly trying to portray Senator Clinton as a cold calculater. What politician doesn't calculate, and what politician worth his/her knickers doesn't weigh the changing political calculus based on imagined scenarios? Senator Clinton was foolish to utter what all backroom pols of all political persuasions routinely consider in either dead seriousness or as an amusing parlor game.

What Senator Clinton said is the equivalent of a nick on the finger of her political body--it is not fatal and it will not bleed much or long, no matter how much the GOP stomps on it to make it bleed.

[rwe2late]

08:50 AM on 08/25/2007

Whatever advantage a new 9/11 might give Bush in terms of using his bully pulpit for media manipulation may be disputed.

But the real advantage that would be given Bush is both indisputable and dangerous. It would result from the many new laws such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and his many Presidential executive orders. Added secrecy, added powers to silence or intimidate critics, added powers to seize property, added control of information, added ability to promote a climate of fear by staged arrests, claims of conspiracies, and institutional "danger" alerts and "security" measures. His ability to employ privatized security forces, as in New Orleans, would also be enhanced.

However, Hillary and others probably won't spell it out because they are too afraid of being labeled "soft on terrorism".
(Joe McCarthy's ghost now wanders in the White House.)

[Meteor]

05:51 AM on 08/25/2007

The bad news is that it is the Bush Administrations's watch until the next election. Any act of terrorism is on their watch until then. How does that help the GOP?

Hillary would do well to think more and talk less.

[bbln]

04:23 AM on 08/25/2007

While everyone else is recycling the rumors of who sold what in the Lincoln Bedroom in the 90s and who's answer was correct on Foreign Policy 6 weeks ago, thank you Hillary for keeping your eye on the prize - our future - and running on the General Election issues.

Does anyone seriously think that if there were a terrorist attack, and Giuliani was the Republican candidate, that people would have the logical calm to analyze whether the Democratic Party would be just as strong on security? NO...with the spectre of 9-11, they'd flock to the Republicans & the "Mayor of America" like terrorized sheep. We need to start framing the issues now, and deconstructing the irrational fear that terrorism conjures up in all of us that has also been the reason, we, the American people, have allowed Bush to stay in office against our own interests. Think people, think about what the stakes really are, instead of this insipid back and forth about Obama vs. Clinton vs. Edwards, etc. It's us against another set of terrorists - the Republicans and their fear-mongering that's working, and the stakes are - do we really want more war, more fear, and a loss of our civil rights?

[neogejo]

02:16 AM on 08/25/2007

I'm glad that Hilary brought that to the surface.
Just like the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen, they will let another attack occur. All to hold on to power.

But, think. If they let another attack occur, then how are THEY protecting us.

But, I do not think that they have weighed that in the situation. They see fear as a way to control the masses.

It will either be an attack, or the continuance of war that may falsely keep Bush in office.
God help us.

[schoolmaster]

12:32 AM on 08/25/2007

Hillary is preempting.

[naijaman]

12:11 AM on 08/25/2007

So let me get this straight: It's ok for Hillary to use hypotheticals but she attacks Obama for supposedly using hypotheticals.

Eh....ok Hillary...whatever.

[willynel]

10:52 PM on 08/24/2007

You know, I don't know who told her to do this, but they should be fired. We know that the Republicans would blame the Democrats (which is what she should have said), but would anyone really believe George Bush now? Six years in the White House? Over a decade of Republican rule in the Congress? Please.

As for the global warming debate that somehow made its way in here, you deniers are getting more ridiculous everyday. All you have to do is to talk to any meteorologist (aka weatherperson) and they will tell you that rising temperatures mean harsher weather especially for things like Hurricanes. The temperatures are rising more every year.

Katrina and Dean were the outcome of years of warming in the ocean. If we don't start now, we will start having a Category 5 hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico region every year.

Global Warming isn't something that is going to show up like the Y2K bug. It's a gradual process that has been going on for years. We have the ability to do something now. Something that will not only clean up the air, but be beneficial to OUR economy and not the economies of states that want to kill us.

Where do you think Iran gets its money to fund Hamas and Hezbollah? The Lottery?

[MPeter]

10:33 PM on 08/24/2007

Hillary on the point? My God, have you not been watching her in her last TV appearances? SHE SAID SHE DOES NOT DO HYPOTHETICALS! Is the scenario she is considering not a hypothetical? What does this make her? Liar, flip-flopper...take your pick. She lies so often she forgets what she just said a minute ago. Someone do this woman a favor, pull her off the public stage. She makes even Bill cringe!

[cocksman]

10:25 PM on 08/24/2007

Thats why the DEMS have to stop PUSSY-FOOTING around and go on the WAR PATH against rove/gop if they want to win the White House in 08.

So PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON call up the Bill Clinton mafia machine and intimidate, threaten and blackmail these influential MEDIA house in publishing and reporting innuendoes and derogatory news on these wus of a republiKKKan candidates.

....C'MON HILLARY/CLARK 08 WE HAVE A PRESIDENCY TO WIN

[Marlyn]

09:56 AM on 08/25/2007

forget Hillary, draft Wes Clark for PRESIDENT!

[avidobserver]

09:59 PM on 08/24/2007

I'm very disappointed with Hilary for making that statement! That's a very defeatist attitude. With the repugs screwing up the war on terrorism from day one, it boggles the mind that she believes a terror attack on US soil would give the repugs an advantage. If anything, she should emphasize that such an occurrence would further demonstrate the repugs ineptitude for keeping America terrorist free. If she keeps this up, she'll lose me!

[Marlyn]

09:55 AM on 08/25/2007

She already lost me.

[Diaschisis]

09:57 PM on 08/24/2007

There is of course no doubt that the specter of a terror attack will be prominently used by the republicans with the hope of scaring people into voting for them. Hillary may as well steal some of their thunder. If there is an actual "terrorist" attack before the election I imagine it could well work against republicans, showing that we are not safer and that fighting them over there etc...is not protecting us.

[IMPRISONBUSH]

09:56 PM on 08/24/2007

I DON'T PUT IT PAST BUSH TO BLOW SOMETHING UP IN AMERICA JUST TO PUT REAL FEAR IN THE AMERICAN VOTER.
I HOPE NO ONE IS HURT WHEN THEY DO IT YES I DON'T TRUST BUSH , IN SIX YEARS ALL HE HAS DONE IS LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

[Birdman]

08:58 PM on 08/24/2007

I agree it would give the republics an advantage and I'm glad somneone brought it up. I have always said that the republics will initiate or enable a terrorist attack through inaction in this country in order to win. The funny part is how stupid must this country be to fall for the lies? How has GW protected us? He hasn't, in fact his half baked idea of attacking Iraq has made things worse, not only that but this drooler wants to make it even worse by invading Iran. God help us if we are attacked and the Republics convince the mouth breathers in this country they can protect us yet again. Look at how many fell for GW's lie that we never change presidents during a war, We have changed presidents in just about every war we have been involved in, but again the mouth breathers in this country believe the lies. They need to wake up and stop voting against thier own best interests. After all only about 10 percent of this country is wealthy and that is the only group the republics represent.

[misterbone]

07:56 PM on 08/24/2007

Then there's Ted Nugent, the rocker whose posters every troll jacks off on:

"I was in Chicago last week I said—Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these you punk? Obama, he’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on one of my machine guns…Let’s hear it for them. I was in NY and I said hey Hillary—you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch…Since I’m in California, I’m gonna find– she might wanna suck on my machine gun! Hey, Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless whore. Any questions? Freeeeedom!"

Mmmmmmthink he'd enlist in the Marines and apply some of that rage on some real terrists?





Nah.