Hillary Parrots Bush Fearmongering at Tonight's Debate!

[ddeclue]

Q: Who said:

"Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe."

a) Hillary Clinton
b) George Bush
c) All of the above.

Answer: all of the above. Hillary is parroting the Bush fearmongering mantra rather than expressing courage and faith in our future.

"Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe." is what Hillary said tonight and what George Bush said just last September.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2006/09/20060911-3.html)

We need to adopt the FDR mantra that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". As FDR pointed out nameless unreasoning fear is destroying our ability to make needed progress.

We saw this on the news just yesterday with the vastly overblown story about JFK airport in which 4 people, 3 of which were not even living in the United States and had no real ability to come here were accused of threatening to blow up fuel depots at the airport.

In fact these conspirators were more likely to win the New York lottery than to pose any actual threat to the airport. They did not have access, nor did they have the technical skills required. Yet our press ran around shreiking about this supposed threat, including at tonight's debate, as if it were a meaningful event - simply because it sells ad time and raises viewership.

Our country has faced real threats before and we need to grow a collective backbone in our country and stop cowering in fear at our own shadows.

This is not the Civil War, nor World War II, nor even the Cold War. We are the pre-eminent military power on the planet and outspend the next twenty seven nations combined, yet we are told to be afraid by our leaders rather than show the courage of our forefathers.

Edwards is right - the "war on terror" IS a bumper sticker slogan, not a real policy. Any war on an abstract noun is likely to fail for there is no definition of the mission nor of victory. We have already seen this with the war on drugs. We need not repeat the same mistake with persons who engage in terrorism.

The real key to victory is to alleviate poverty and suffering around the world that feeds the discontent that radicalizes people to take violent action.

The real key is to separate the radicals from their base of support by acting in a humane, just and compassionate manner around the world as Americans and by practicing what we preach.

The real key is to treat these radicals as criminals - not as military adversaries.

When we use the military to fight them, we legitimize their cause and make them military opponents which raises their standing with their base of support.

When we treat them as criminals and prosecute them for their crimes and give them an open and fair trial, they become discredited for the criminals that they are, rather than becoming martyrs to continue recruiting.

We must end the war in Iraq and work to end poverty around the world if we want to win the war on terrorism. For those reasons, Edwards is my man!

[rodeodance]

1. seems I recall Obama saying we are not safe which is no different that what Hil said

[ddeclue]

2. Perhaps he did but I latched onto her using Bush's exact quote...

We are not safe but in the ultimate analysis it is better to be free than safe.

Let's face it, nobody leaves this planet alive (Rapture Righties excepted).. so ultimately we are all going to die... I'd rather live free while I AM alive than spend all my time being afraid of the bogeyman.

Hillary's point is that we must keep at this safety game no matter the costs - to our reputation, to our civil liberties, to what it means to be an American.

New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die"...it's not "Live on your knees to be safe"...

The terrorists "win" if we hide under our beds and give up our liberties just so we can be "safe".

[ripple]

23. Obama said we are less safe today,

due to the new networks of terrorists that have sprung from our nation's actions in Iraq.

I agree with him.

[ddeclue]

24. That's what I thought I remembered...

which is why I went after Hillary, not Obama on this...

[wyldwolf]

3. Accept that IS NOT what she said.

She said, "I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough."

[ddeclue]

4. OK...so what is the significant difference wise guy??

It's exactly the same Bush-speak...

Doug D.

[wyldwolf]

7. unfortunately for you, your post is misleading

You set it up as a multiple choice test, effectively stating they said the same thing, which they did not.

[ddeclue]

8. THEY DID...you are picking NITS..get a clue..

Your picking of NITS is MISLEADING..we know the truth..

[wyldwolf]

10. they did not. You're busted for a misleading post.

[ddeclue]

11. THEY DID- YOU'RE BUSTED FOR PICKING AT NITS..

LAME LAME LAME

[wyldwolf]

13. THEY DID NOT - YOU'RE BUSTED FOR A MISLEADING POST

[ddeclue]

14. THEY DID YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME PICKING NITS

Do you really think those two sentences mean the opposite of each other? If not then go away!

Doug D.

[DemDem07]

15. wyld is nothing if not consistent

Consistently wrong.

[Forkboy]

16. No no no...wyldwolf is right.

She said,"I believe we are safer than we were."

Which makes her an idiot.

[DemDem07]

17. That is exactly why wyld want to argue semantics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1036625&mesg_id=1036625

And not the reality of Hillary's ignorant statement.

[ddeclue]

18. So let's get this straight..

Hillary believes we are safer than we were.

George Bush believes we are safer than we were.

Hillary says we are still not safe.

George Bush says we are still not safe.

Just HOW are they DIFFERENT?

Answer: They are the same and spreading the same fearmongering about terrorism.

Doug D.

[DemDem07]

21. Correct

How else do you explain the frantic jihad from team hillary tonight to do damage control.

[Auntie Bush]

42. "They are the same and spreading the same fearmongering about terrorism."

BULL! "I latched onto her using Bush's EXACT quote. You said what she said was more important because it was the EXACT quote. But it wasn't... (look up the word exact) so it was no worse than what Obama said. By the way folks...WE ARE MORE SAFE IN MANY WAYS! BUT WE ARE STILL NOT SAFE! You must admit we have more security across the country and try to determine who boards our planes. After all we have spent many billions toward security. If we are not ANY safer...then we wasted ALL those BILLIONS! That is a negative thought so you're not speaking positive yourself.

However, we are not as safe as we should be after spending so many millions because we invaded Iraq and bush is creating more terrorists faster than we can make them collateral damage. He's a drunken dumb cluck on drugs!

The problem is candidates have NO time to explain there answers and the media and some here quickly take the opportunity to jump on someone for what they said. If you are honest with yourself...you knew full well what she meant! Dems shouldn't put down other Dems for ridiculous made up reasons.

Furthermore, to say we need to be safer is a FACT. That is not fear mongering! To deny that is putting your head in the sand...just like bush et al.

[ddeclue]

46. BULL YOURSELF - WE ARE NOT SAFER.

According to the State Dept. terrorism is UP 40% from 2005 to 2006. So she was wrong and you are wrong and Bush was wrong on the facts.

And we are no safer than before-security not withstanding because the terrorists will simply choose a different way to attack if they do attack anyways.

As for "exactness" you and I BOTH know that you are picking nits in trying to put daylight between Bush's sentence and Hillary's. The meaning is exactly the same.

Explain to me the difference in MEANING between what they both said. Fact is that there ISN'T ANY...

And we CAN'T ever be totally safe - if you believe that then you are either a fool or a Bush/Hillary supporter who thinks that the Iraq war is useful somehow.

And We DON'T need to be safer - that is NOT a fact.

We need to have courage and be FREER. That IS a fact.

Apparently YOU are the one who hides YOUR head in the sands of fear and who cowers before Bush.

Save the Constitution - impeach Bush, don't elect Hillary.

Good day,

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[papau]

30. Taliban no longer in control and Saddam dead -seems safer but at what cost is another

question as we now have many dead and by refusing to leave Iraq we develop more terrorists.

But I think she is correct as to the safer - taking out Afghanistan was the right thing to do, IMO. New laws were needed but these took out civil liberties that we did not need to give up for safety - but we are safer with the new laws in place and new intel org setup, IMO. Saddam was not worth it and it is a close call on his being dead being more important than the new terrorists we create by not leaving - but net-net I'd also say we're "safer", just as Hillary said.

[ddeclue]

32. Saddam wasn't a threat and Taliban is making a comeback

because we are in Iraq instead of Afghanistan.

Terrorism is up 40% so now Virginia there ISN'T a Santa Claus so we AREN'T safer and Hillary is both wrong and a fearmongerer for telling us about how a small group of determined terrorists can... (fill in the blank). The point is that you can never be absolutely safe and that we need to recognize that our Bill of Rights is more important than absolute safety. Let's get real and put things in perspective for a moment. You are far more likely to die from:

a) a heart attack.
b) stroke.
c) cancer.
d) automobile accident (often due to drinking, wreckless driving, and/or not wearing seatbelts)
e) gun crime or accident.

than from terrorism. All of these are by and larger either self inflicted lifestyle choices or something we inflict upon one another. All of these are orders of magnitude more relevant threats than "terrorism".

Terrorism as an objective statistical fact rates somewhere around snake-bite or lightning strike as something to "fear". We need to stop being such damned cowards about it - we act like cowards, the terrorists get what they want. Terrorism only works if you are willing to give in to fear - it relies upon spectacular but statistically meaningless attacks or more often just spectacular but statistically meaningless threats of attack to achieve its means. If we don't show fear, they can't coerce. It's that simple.

New laws WERE NOT needed. Better enforcement of EXISTING laws were needed. After all, Bush had ample warning in the August Presidential Daily Brief which said, and I quote "Al Qaeda determined to attack in U.S."

Hmm...seems we didn't need to conduct warrantless wire taps after all.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[papau]

38. didn't need to conduct warrantless wire taps after all" - true - is the 40% a DOJ stat? n/t

n/t

[ddeclue]

39. State Dept. figure for 2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6610345.stm

[papau]

40. I didn't think I'd seem such a number for the US. - thanks n/t

n/t

[ddeclue]

41. It's relatively new info (May 2007) n/t.

[dionysus]

31. you know damn well what he meant, stop picking nits

[enough already]

33. Does it depend on what your definition of "is" is?

Been there, done that.

[DemDem07]

5. Nice huh?

Hillary = Less more of the same.

[ddeclue]

6. Apparently it will be Clinton/Lieberman 2008...

Yikes!

[papau]

9. LOL - thanks for the laugh - I doubt Hillary would let Joe within 10 ft of her unless comity

required her to do so.

:-)

[ddeclue]

12. Except they think just alike on the war and terrorism.

[ElizabethDC]

19. No, they don't

they have very different views on Iraq. For one thing, Lieberman was supporting the surge while Hillary was saying we need to start getting out. Instead of "just alike" that sounds like "complete opposites" to me.

[ddeclue]

20. Hillary has been for the surge then against it...she strategizes based on the polls.

It is hard to nail her down on the war but I'm going to go with how she started out since she keeps shape-shifting her way through the campaign.

Edwards has been clear for a long time on the war - against.

Hillary has been playing both sides against the middle - as Edwards pointed out she slinked up to vote near the last in the Senate rather than taking an outspoken position on being against the war. She cannot make a clean break and often sounds like Mr. Lieberman on the war and terror.

Doug D.

[papau]

28. Guess a Bush like person that never changes their position regardless of changed facts is your ideal

As to being for a surge - Bush proposed a surge in January of 2007 - I can find no Hillary comment that was ever in support of that surge.

Could you point toward the comment you are referring to when you say she was for the surge before she was against it?

Thanks

[ddeclue]

35. The only fact that changed was American support for the war.

Hillary changed her opinion in (delayed) response to the polls - she changed AFTER Nov 2006 in response to the election.

As for the troop surge she is trying to play both ends against the middle. On MSNBC she QUALIFIED her "opposition" to the surge by saying she would be against it unless it was part of a broader plan, i.e. she's really for it as long as it can be described as part of a larger strategy by BushCo for middle east peace. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16267456/)

That's Clintonian word parsing at its finest and reason enough to vote against her.

You are either FOR the war or AGAINST the war.

John Edwards is AGAINST the war. Hillary is FOR the war.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[papau]

36. support a short-term increase in American troops in Iraq if it were part of a broader withdrawal pla

seems the "surge support" was an attempt to - indeed was conditioned on - getting Bush on board a plan to end it.

I do not see the problem.

John Edwards is AGAINST the war. So is Hillary. So are all the Dems running. Edwards is indeed next to DK the strongest voice on this as well as other positions. He is both progressive and populist - which I like - but there is no need to say any are "for the war" when none are.

[ddeclue]

37. Clintonian PARSING is the problem...

She always tries to play both ends against the middle and can't come out and be strongly against the war in Iraq. Hillary IS for the war, she just wants to sound anti-war for certain audiences now that her pollsters tell her to do so while trying to talk tough for other audiences when it serves her purpose.

If she wanted to be against the war, Edwards is right, she should have made a big speech and a big point of being against the war in the recent Congressional vote rather than slinking up to vote at the last minute without speaking on it. Edwards is right - that's the difference between leading and legislating. Hillary didn't make that speech because she was afraid to offend her pro-war friends. She always tries to triangulate and play both sides against the middle.

I want a President who will tell the truth and be against the war, not just when it's politically convenient.

Doug D.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. HRC still has not bothered to tell voters how many troops she would keep in Iraq indefinitely

Why can't HRC be honest with the voters and tell people how many troops will continue to fight the war if she wins in her "residual force"? The Pentagon is estimating keeping a "residual" force of 30,000-50,000 for as far as the eye can see. Perhaps this is why HRC and Obama don't give us any numbers regarding their "residual" and "limited" forces that will continue the war. They won't sit there and bake cookies all day in Iraq. They will be there to fight a de-escalated war--but make no mistake--war is war, regardless of whether we have 50,000 troops or 100,000. If you want to end the war, vote for a candidate who wants to take all the troops out and end the war.

[cui bono]

25. War is war except when it's an occupation.

It's not a war anymore for the US. If we keep calling it a war we let them frame it as a win/lose scenario. We need to call it what it is, an occupation.

[ddeclue]

26. Good point..actually it never WAS a war legally speaking...

There was never a proper declaration of war by Congress...just an unconstitutional authorization of force followed by an invasion followed by the present occupation. It's not any more of a "war" in a legal/constitutional sense than was Vietnam or Korea. We need to acknowledge that people are dying though and I think the word "war" does convey that to the general public.

Doug D.

[cui bono]

29. I agree with the fact that it never was a properly declared war, but

I disagree that war is the term to use with the public. Generally a war is thought to have a winner and a loser. So the Repubs and BushCo frame it as we don't want to lose, we want victory. Even though most people are against this occupation now, I still think that by framing it as a war it allows them to label the Dems as "cut and runners", quitters, losers, etc... If we succeed in framing it as what it really is, an occupation, I believe it will sour the public even more on the situation and allow the Dems to not have to keep answering the quitting and being against the troops smears. Also, it would put them on the offensive with this issue and make BushCo and his faithful Repubs answer as to why we should stay there. I doubt they can come up with a good answer once it is framed this way. Not that I think they have come up with one now, but it would force them to really explain what the hell we're doing over there if they keep getting asked about it in terms of it being an occupation.

[ddeclue]

34. Wars on abstract nouns can't have winners and losers.

That's the point you make - we haven't "won" the war on drugs either have we?

As for "cutting and running", Custer would have done better to "cut and run". Only morons keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

Only the rapture rightists still believe in or trust the Bushies at this point (the die-hard 25%). The Bush "framers" have lost their ability to control the argument long ago - the Democratic Congress just seems not to know that.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[cui bono]

44. Yeah, the Dems need to get their talking points in order.

Especially since theirs would be the truth!

[papau]

27. I agree - but some like to dump on Hillary too much to think about the differences n/t

n/t

[flpoljunkie]

43. What's with the Bush talking point "terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life..."

Terrorists want to destroy us by destroying our economy--not by converting us to radical Islamists. Surely, Hillary did not intend this. The notion is preposterous.

In another exchange over military policy, Clinton differed with Edwards over the term "global war on terror," which Edwards has dismissed as a politically charged bumper-sticker slogan. "That's all it is, all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture," Edwards said. "None of those things are okay. They are not the United States of America."

Asked if she agreed with Edwards, Clinton responded, "No, I do not."

"I am a senator from New York," she said. "I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060301349_pf.html

[ddeclue]

45. Exactly the fearmongering Lieberman/Clinton/Bush/GOP talking points

that I was talking about. And it is exactly what is wrong with her. We can't live our lives afraid of everything that might jump out and say boo to us - but Hillary, Lieberman, and Bush want us to. I REFUSE to live in fear. If I lived the first 24 years of my life under the threat of global nuclear anhilation at the hands of the Soviet Union, then al qaeda (and by extension George Bush, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton) can just bite me. I'm not going to be scared of them nor am I willing to give up my Constitution because some people get their undies in a bunch over it.

Let's face it, as bad as 9/11 was, it wouldn't even be the 20th worst battle of the Civil War. 6 times as many Americans died at D-Day than on 9/11. Several times as many died on Iwo Jima. Lets get some historical perspective folks.

Compared to heart disease, cancer, and smoking, 9/11 doesn't even register - and we do these things to ourselves with our over-eating, under-exercise and smoking - yet no one has said that we should tear up the Constitution to stop heart attacks...

We all die some time. The question is whether you want to live your life in freedom until then.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Save the Constitution. Impeach Bush.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL