Clinton: Terror Attack Will Help GOP

[CoffeeCat]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'" Clinton told a house party in Concord, first reported by the New York Post and confirmed by her campaign. "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 added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."



Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

---

Hillary plays the terror card. A play right out of Rove's handbook. Disconcerting. Disgusting. Deplorable.

[Connie_Corleone]

1. How can she be the best to deal with it if she says it'll benefit the Repubs?

[global1]

2. Nothing Like Giving Ideas To The Repugs.......

what the hell is wrong with her for saying something like this? This is just irresponsible. If if doesn't give the Repugs ideas it could give prospective terrorists the idea.

And she calls Obama naive.

Maybe Rove went to work behind the scenes for HRC.

[yardwork]

5. Give them ideas?! LOL! You don't think that the barrage of "terra terra terra"

has given everybody "ideas" since 9/11?

[yardwork]

3. I think that Clinton is right and wise to bring this up.

A lot of us are worried that bushco, in desperation, will engineer another "terrorist" attack to salvage the election for them. By anticipating this and talking about it in advance, Clinton defuses the Republican advantage somewhat.

Note that she doesn't miss the opportunity to remind her audience how the Republican's have mishandled everything. "No matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

She's right. If another "terrorist" attack happens it will benefit the Republicans. I'm glad that she's putting it out there.

[CoffeeCat]

11. In effect...

...what Clinton has done is solidify the Republican-created lie that Democrats
are "soft on terror" and that Republicans can keep us safer.

That is what she has done.

By unequivocally saying that "a terrorist attack would help the GOP" she is saying
that if America is attacked, more people would vote for the Republican candidate, thus
"helping" the Republicans.

She could have said a lot of things. She could make the obvious point that one major
terrorist attack happened on the GOP watch--despite the August "bin Laden determined to
Strike the US" PDB.

If she senses that the GOP may MIHOP or LIHOP, then she could get in front of them and
discuss how terrible it would be for the GOP to have two terror attacks on their books--
and how that would be an utter failure on their party.

But no. Hillary said that a "terror attack would help the GOP".

I'd call that many things, but certainly not "wise".

[yardwork]

21. I disagree with your assessment of the impact of her words.

She's not conceding that she's soft on terror. Just the opposite. In effect, she's daring the Republicans to pull their same old crap. Remember the video of Osama bin Laden that "surfaced" right before the 2004 elections? Remember the ridiculous "wolf" ad about how Kerry was soft on terrorism? Clinton is anticipating those kinds of dirty tricks now.

In effect, she's defanging the wolf ads before they air. Good for her.

[complain jane]

27. I agree too.

And I have to say I like the way she's been kicking some butt lately.
on edit: woops this was meant to be a reply to the "I agree" post, sorry.

[pscot]

28. What if? What if?

She's damned well supposed to have an answer to that question, not cower in fear and concede that Democrats automatically lose that argument. That's like Bill Beligman telling the Pats, "Boys, if the SeaHawks run Alexander off tackle all afternoon, I just don't know how we'll deal with it." The fans would have his head on a plate. This lady wants to be President. She cannot simply hand the central argument to the Republicans.

[karynnj]

30. Or giving them additional teeth

Especially if she is not nominated - which is deplorable.

[mzmolly]

44. How so?

:shrug:

[karynnj]

47. By stating that national security issues are strong for the Republicans as a given

without disputing the Republican claim, when:
1) She could argue that ALL Democrats can point to the terrible job the Republicans did
2) Could argue that the Democrats in this century - Gore and Kerry - would have been far better than Bush on the War on Terror. (Hillary has repeated something close to Kerry's statement that it should be based on internation cooperation in law enforcement and intelligence and occasionally small smart military actions against non-state terrorist. Why not claim what was the Democratic position as the Democratic position?)
3) The Clinton administration itself had a similar, though less robust, version of what Kerry proposed - post 911. (Kerry pushed some of his ideas earlier - such as fighting international money laundering.)

The point is to show 2 major things:
1) The Democrats were consistent in how to fight non-state terrorist and the Democrats' plan DID change to accomodate the realities of 911.
2) Even some Republicans now concede that that plan is better than what the Bush administration did.

I can see how in 2005 and 2006, the Clinton people choose to diminish Kerry's credentials and not echo the comments of experts and conservatives that he was right. He was a potential opponent. Now he is not running. There is no down side to trying to use what was good about his policies to fight this charge. After all, no matter who the nominee is, will anyone be surprised if one of the strongest best surrogates on foreign policy, terrorism and the environment is not Senator Kerry.

[mzmolly]

49. It's not simply a Republican claim, it's a matter of documentation.

Again her statement was as follows:

"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."

I'd say that she addressed the concerns you note above.

[karynnj]

50. You miss my point -

I am speking of challanging the very idea that the Republicans are perceived as better. I know that they are - the point is that by not turning the question to address whether that perception is reasonable, she loses an opportunity to argue that the Democrats are and HAVE BEEN better on national security.

The reason some here are angry is 2 fold -
- It reinforces the Republicans (and yes I saw the complex sentence that you cite - it seems to be speaking of future events - ignoring the past.)
- The statement did knock all her opponents on this issue.

[mzmolly]

53. The statement said Republicans are a failure and it didn't knock her opponents

unless perhaps she's expecting to lose? I don't think she is.

[karynnj]

54. It does not say the Republicans are a failure

It is much more conditional than that - saying IF an event occurs, then MO MATTER HOW BAD etc

This is NOT speaking of what happened in the last 6 years. It is at most saying that even if they screw up again it will help them.

[mzmolly]

55. This IS speaking about the past and the future.

Goodness, people are desperate to take down Hillary. Let's do it over a real issue, huh?

[karynnj]

56. Hillary will not be taken down by a poorly phrased sentence

You can say it is speaking of past and future. I think it speaks of hypothetical future events and how they hypothetically will be handled. I am clearly not alone in my interpretation, nor are you in yours - ergo, it is a poorly conceived sentence.

[mzmolly]

57. I don't consider the sentence poorly conceived.

However, I agree she will not be "taken down" over this remark, in spite of obvious desperation to do so.

Further, it does seem odd that this has become a debate about proper grammar, no?

BTW, I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I think the nuanced "anger" over her remarks is quite comical.

[OnyxCollie]

32. Dems got no game.

They have been ineffectual at framing anything to their advantage. Republics, despite being the minority, are able to wantonly bitch-slap the Dems at any time.

Hillary is providing a straight-forward assessment of the Democratic party should a terrorist attack occur. Republics will unite and Dems will be on the defensive.

Bushco and the RNC are common criminals, motivated by greed, egomania, and the neoconservative ideology. The threat of being caught and punished will drive them to extreme measures. The neoconservatives adamantly believe their plan to take the world's riches by force will succeed, and should another attack be necessary to meet that objective, then so be it.

Bushco and the RNC will take full advantage of the media, using it to disseminate their ideology, propagate fear, frame the Dems as weak, and further radicalize and polarize the public.

Bushco will use another attack to justify (and ask for more) wiretapping.

Faux News, the Wall Street Journal, and the right wing conservative blowhards that make up 91% of talk radio will provide the echo chamber for republican gains in 2008.

[dansolo]

52. No she's not

She flat out said that it "automatically" gives Republicans the advantage. If she was doing what you claim, than she would have said that the perception is wrong. But instead, she confirmed it, effectively saying that she is the only Democrat who can handle things like a Republican. While I don't doubt that for a moment, it is probably the stupidest thing she has ever said, and does not make her seem presidential at all.

[struggle4progress]

34. Bingo

[mzmolly]

43. Actually, she's put Republicans on the same side as terrorists.

She did say that "in spite of how they've failed" it would likely help them. I am glad she said it. She is revealing their tactics in the process of making these comments.

[emilyg]

17. I agree.

[mzmolly]

42. My thoughts as well. It gives an opportunity to discuss their sorry record.

And, it puts the R's on the side of terror, in a sense.

[Xipe Totec]

4. What's bad for America is good for the GOP

yup, that pretty much sums up the situation.

[karynnj]

6. Why concede this

why not say something about how if that happened there would have 2 major attacks when the Republicans were in office - and that the record was better under her husband.

I think it interesting that Richard Clarke and Gary Hart, 2 Democrats with the most impeccable standing on terrorism, have defended Obama from Hillary's attacks. I don't know if either have endorsed him, but they certainly defended him.

[Skip Intro]

7. Oh please.

She's not playing the "terror" card and she's not using rove's handbook.


I think she makes a valid point. Realisically, another attack would benifit the repukes because of the certain to follow "rally 'round our leader" effect. Should such an event happen, she may very well be the best candidate to mute that effect, and come out on top politically. I think its called campaigning.


She's not saying, "vote for me or the terrorists win." THAT would be out of rove's playbook. She didn't say anything like that.

[gratuitous]

8. Why is she calling plays right out of the Rove playbook?

I'm really beginning to get annoyed with Clinton. Her comments that seemed to say she wouldn't rule out a first strike nuclear attack against a country that didn't have nukes was deplorable. Now she practically states that another 9/11 attack will somehow inure to the benefit of the Bush administration and by extension to the GOP.

Firstly, I don't see that angle at all, and I think it's a neocon fantasy straight out of the bowels of Hell (or the GOP fantasy of strongman dictator as mostly benevolent father figure, as if there's a difference). Secondly, her comments become prima facie evidence -- as if any were needed -- to be seized by the lizardbrains to claim that "even Hillary Clinton" acknowledges that despite the latest catastrophe/blunder/avoidable tragedy the Republicans are best suited and positioned to protect America.

The job of politics, politicians and office holders is NOT to "defend" or "protect" America. Their job is to protect and defend the constitution. Damn, this pisses me off.

[WillTheGoober]

9. No ...

This is a preemptive strike on the Republicans.

She's starting dialog with America -- having everyone reflect on whether we would support a Republican if we're attacked.

I think this is smart.

Peace.

[donkeyotay]

18. Agreed. It's there. She's talking about it and reframing it. nt

[mzmolly]

45. Absolutely.

WELCOME! :toast:

[Vincardog]

10. She should have said "The GOP believe that another terror attack in the US

would help them. However I believe that it would just highlight how their failed policies have made us MORE vulnerable and less safe. Another terror attack would expose the GOP as complete failures on the security front as well as the social and economic fronts is short it would show them to be the complete failures in every avenue."

When are our candidates going to learn how to attack?

[ProSense]

12. Another absurd Hillary comment!

Hillary: If we get attacked, Giulliani, Romney, McCain, Brownback or Tancredo will have the edge, and I'm best prepared to deal with that.

more

[regnaD kciN]

13. Foot, meet mouth...

I can hear it now: "And the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, is so unhinged that she thinks Republicans are planning a fake terror attack on America!!!" :eyes:

Seriously, that's the sort of speculation that's O.K. for us grassroots-types on DU to wonder about, but not a good idea to be enunciated for the record by a major candidate. (And, yes, I know that HRC didn't actually say that there was a MIHOP event in the process, but you can bet that's how it will be spun -- if not now, in the general election for certain if she's the nominee.)

[EFerrari]

35. "She opened her good eye."

lol

[Cogito ergo doleo]

14. I don't get the thinking on this, and I hear it frequently.

It doesn't add up that a new attack would help the party who claims to be engaged in an unpopular war because "we're fighting them over there, so we don't fight them here," and how much safer we are because while they've been in power there have not been additional attacks. Why would it be to repug's benefit, because it would seem it would be in the obverse.

[wisteria]

15. I think she is wrong about an attack benefiting Repubs.

They have been saying we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Also, the Administration has gotten the more intrusive NASA bill agreed upon for the time being. Personally, I think Republicans will be blamed if we are attacked.

[Jax]

16. 'Disconcerting. Disgusting. Deplorable"

You are so much nicer than me Two Sparkles. My description of her saying this was not so nice.

But you are spot on.

Alyce

[Ediacara]

19. She's dead wrong here

The GOP have turned this country one foot shy of a police state and if another attack comes, people will rebel against their nonsense, not go back for seconds.

[leftchick]

20. she does not get money from Ruppert Murdoch for nothing

and many other wingers to boot! Why the fuck more have not caught on is a tragedy.

[zara]

22. Same old triangulation

This was a stupid thing to say.
But this was calculated. She takes the left for granted, and is wooing the right. Same as her husband.
Maybe it will work.
But it signals that she is not serious about changing policy in Iraq.
A vote for Clinton in the primaries is a vote for quagmire.

[DemKR]

23. She just lost my support. N/t

[ima_sinnic]

24. between the lines, telling voters to choose repukes

she links "able to respond to terrorist attacks" with "repukes" in the voters' minds. even thought it is a dumb@$$, false concept, she helps to perpetuate the myth. I knew I could count on our "republican democrat" to f**k over The People yet again.

[BlueStater]

25. I disagree

One of the major Repuke talking points of the last six years is that there have been no attacks since 9/11. What will the public say once that's no longer the case?

[David__77]

26. Her analysis only true if Democrats capitulated politically.

If Democrats opted not to "rally round" the president, but instead attacked the government for bringing terror to America, then it could benefit Democrats. The Spanish socialists followed that line, and defeated the rightist government after a major attack. After 9/11/01, the Democrats capitulated and formulated no alternative political program, so of course the GOP gained.

[OnyxCollie]

33. Whomever gets the bullhorn first

will be able to identify the threat and the party responsible for the failure.

bush/cheney vs. reid/pelosi

Who do you think will win?

[HuffleClaw]

36. i've seen NOTHING that leads me to believe that they'd react properly

they've jumped to the sound of republican trumpets too many times.

[paparush]

29. Hil is starting to morph into Bush Lite

[truthisfreedom]

31. What Hillary said should be a very big flashing warning sign to all Democratic candidates

for all offices, that says: "It's time to unify and come up with a way to capture the imaginations and the hearts of the American public in the event of another terror attack."

[treestar]

37. Isn't this what we have been saying?

Or condemning when some rightwing neocon tool says he hopes it'll happen?

[durrrty libby]

38. The feigned outrage over something that has been said here hundreds of times

showcases the hideous idiocy of the haters.

[bvar22]

39. Hillary, Dear,

If you are going to run on a Republican platform, why not just join the Republican Party?
You'll be much happier.

[Fovea]

40. I cannot decide whether her statement

was more craven or stupid.

It reflected a fear of Rove, even as he has been frog marched back to Texas.

If there is another terrorist attack in the US, I cannot imagine how the Cheney presidency could withstand the public reaction to their total failure to defend America after bleeding it dry in a brain dead occupation of a country *where no 911 terrorists originated*!

Even a brain damaged pig could deflate the pretzeldent's current rhetoric, which is to compare raping Iraq to a war he went AWOL to avoid. He can't even remember the vietnam war, like his daddy couldnt remember where he was the day JFK was shot.

I also cannot imagine how anyone could read Hillary's statement in a positive light. She should drop out now, and spare us further embarrassment. She's got no fight-- that's a bambi in the headlights kinda statement, IMO.

[mzmolly]

41. It's good that she put this out there, how people have been manipulated.

"no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

I hope she'll start to call them out for failing us on 911 as well.

[Maribelle]

46. Hillary didn't play the terror card she was answering a question that was asked of her.

Wouldn't it have been refreshing if our screwed up msm, such as CNN, also quoted the question.

[janx]

51. Thank you. I have been TRYING to find the context of this.

Every publication of this quote has presented it out of context. So she WAS answering a question?

The media are famous (particularly during primary season) for presenting things out of context. It makes me furious.

Edit: Do you have a link to the question?

[killbotfactory]

48. It's not 2002 anymore, Hillary

I know how she will deal with another terror attack, she will adopt the republican stance and call everyone in the democratic party who doesn't niave and irresponsible.

Will Hillary fight for any democratic cause?

[Strawman]

58. She's half right

There would be a vengeful mood among the American public, and the Republicans would shamelessly capitalize on it like the cynical demagogues they are. They'd be screaming to turn Tehran into glass.

Where she's wrong is that I don't think she is positioned any better than anyone else to temper it. She couldn't ride that tiger in 2002-2003 and she couldn't ride it now. None of the current crop of candidates could.

[eagler]

59. She is totally right for one reason:

The Democrats have chosen not to challenge the RW's control of the media by failing to address the issue of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE which allows the Republicans to insert into millions of voters minds ANYTHING they want and to eclude anything. also they can exploit and slant anything without any interference from the left and center. In short , due to the lack of a Fairness Doctrine - the RWingers have total control over the Most pervasive media of all - TALK RADIO.

[Deja Q]

60. Wait, I thought the GOP would be hurt - what with the frequent claims they've stopped every attack

since 9/11?

[MissMillie]

61. I kid you not

my landlord, who claims to be "independent" but is always going off on tax cuts tells me that if we're attacked again before the 2008 election, he will most definitely vote Republican.

I asked him, "Why? The GOP had a chance to stay in Afganistan and put the kybosh on Al Qaeda, and they didn't. Instead they went into Iraq where there was no threat. Because they did that, they made America less safe. How could you possible think of giving them another chance?"

"Well, yeah, they made a mistake, but we're still safer...."


:wtf: