Other Democratic Candidates on Hillary's terrorism comment

[ProSense]

Chris Dodd Blasts Hillary, Calls Her Terrorism Remarks "Tasteless"
Chris Dodd released a statement lambasting Hillary Clinton for saying that a potential terrorist attack would give the Republicans a political advatange, and she was the best candidate to deal with that. "Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States," Dodd said. A Hillary spokesman offered this clarification: "Sen. Clinton was making clear that she has the strength and experience to keep the country safe."

Edwards Camp: Hillary's Terror Remarks "Deeply Troubling"
John Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis also blasted Hillary: "Senator Clinton’s remarks are deeply troubling. After nearly seven years of George Bush and the politics of fear, the American people deserve a President who will focus first on keeping America safe, rather than calculating the political consequences. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is seemingly taking a page straight from the GOP playbook that got us into this mess — using fear of another terror attack as a political tactic to bolster her candidacy, and that is just wrong."

Richardson: Hillary "Seems To Think" Bush Has Made Us Safer
Bill Richardson had a statement, as well. "We shouldn't be thinking about terrorism in terms of its domestic political consequences, we should be protecting the country from terrorists," said Richardson. "Senator Clinton seems to think that President Bush has made this country safer. I disagree with her. Our failed policy in Iraq is making us less safe."

more

Hillary: ''I believe we are safer than we were.''

[Colobo]

1. What the heck was Hillary thinking?

[MrSlayer]

2. So much for that "perfect" campaign.

Really dumb thing to say. I can't wait for the spin out of the Clinton camp.

[karynnj]

27. oh oh - now tellurian and wylywolf will soon be here

to explain why this was even more super brilliantly perfect than anything else she ever did.

[LSparkle]

3. Yeah, let's watch the MSM try and spin this one ...

I've noticed that when any one candidate "attacks" her, the MSM turns the "attacker" into the issue -- not whether the criticism was VALID. Let's see them try and paint all three of these guys as somehow "stepping over the line."

[Middle finga]

4. Hillary seems to be only concerned about winning over the far right

She doesn't seem to give a damn about the democratic base, I guess she feel she's won enough dems over now she has to work on winning over the right. Democrats got to take a stand this primary season and let the triangulating, pandering candidates know we are not going to support you if you take us for granted. I don't care if got to vote for Kucinich I'm not standing in line to support someone that takes my vote for granted. Why is it that the rightwing base in this country get respect from both side and the left get shunned to side and taking for granted?

[Kagemusha]

5. I don't get the big deal. She accused Republicans of being poised to take advantage

Why get in her way on it? If it's bad for her give her more rope. I had to work hard just to find what she'd said to begin with because the coverage is all about the response.

[Middle finga]

8. To me it's like she's calling the rest of the dem candidates weak

on terror. She's swallowed Rove's talking points hook line and sinker.

[Kagemusha]

9. I guess that just doesn't shock me somehow.

She's the frontrunner, she says she's different, tougher than the rest, that she's less likely to be bowled over by uh, the GOP taking advantage of a terror attack, because she's a fighter. That's her schtick, why would she stop now?

[paulk]

75. well, she is trying to beat the other candidates -

I don't understand your point. Trying to paint herself as stronger than the other candidates is not swallowing Rove's talking points - she's trying to win the nomination. Rove has nothing to do with it.

[DURHAM D]

6. Ok -

Well good for Dodd - he needed to make a statement against her since he looked like he was on Team Hillary at the last debate.

John - just a gadfly at this point. No one is listening.

Richardson - huh?

[cui bono]

11. No one is listening to Edwards?

Say what???

How about the people are listening and that's why the media is afraid to give him coverage.

I'm so sick of Hillary's pandering to the Reich Wing. The fact that she thinks we're safer now than before 911 just shows how far off the mark she is. This last comment shows how she takes the Dems for granted and that she again fails to understand the whole terror situation, which is probably why she just can't bring herself to realize she made a huge mistake voting yes on the IWR.

[usregimechange]

7. kick

[NoFederales]

10. From the "say anything to get elected" candidate? No surprises, besides it

allows her to continue on with the reactionary bullshit routines she is so good at. I am curious how she'll spin around this one, though.

NoFederales

[Alamom]

12. 8 threads/first page

[ProSense]

13. Maybe there's a reason.

What she said was ultra stupid.

You have any other complaints beside the amount of discussion?

[Alamom]

14. Yes, it makes everyone look ultra stupid for the same person to post three OP's about the

same incident and 5 more post it again.

It also reeks of desperation and grasping at straws. I really hate to see Democrats exposing their underbelly to the pukes and the world.

On the practical side, dupes use bandwidth.


edsp

[ProSense]

15. "I really hate to see Democrats exposing their underbelly to the pukes and the world."

I think that's what the complaint against Hillary is for that ridiculous comment.

"On the practical side, dupes use bandwidth."

There is always an excuse as to why Hillary shouldn't be criticized. It's never anything rational, simply don't do it because it makes Democrats look bad.

[Alamom]

16. If it takes 8 (or even 3) threads for anyone to thoroughly criticize any politician on earth,

then someone needs to be re-educated or, possibly re-reading the Posting Etiquette of the forum would help.


edgr

[ProSense]

18. There are more than 31 million posts on DU

most of them criticizing Bush. Do you think that's excessive?

Like I said, never rational, just defensive and reactionary!

[Alamom]

19. Rational, defensive & reactionary is obviously in the eye of the .. multi- DUPES.

Like I said, have at it.......:rofl:

[karynnj]

28. So if we aren't snowed by the Clintons, we are dupes?

Dupes of whom?

[Cha]

21. I know..just a big..

Ya'll!

[Colobo]

17. Obama has stayed away from this.

[Cha]

22. So far..I hope he

comes out and says just the right thing..it was incredibly Freudian Slippage of hillary to reveal her awe for the repuke lie machine.

Quit pushin' the propoganda, hill.

Fuckin' back stabber.

[mzmolly]

24. Good, I hope he'll find a way to remind people who was in office on 911.

And stay out of the fray.

[karynnj]

29. Maybe Senator Clinton should have done that - rather than not question the

RW lie that they are better.

[mzmolly]

33. She did question the lie. Did you read the actual comment?

No wonder people are pissed, they don't read.

"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."

[karynnj]

35. It is not clear if it is the past or future she is speaking of

because her verb tense changes. The most natural way to read it is to mean she is speaking of the event in the conditional clause.

[mzmolly]

42. Of course it's the past she speaks of - "no matter how badly they HAVE handled it."

Pretty clear.

[karynnj]

50. Clear as mud

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."

Simplifying:
IF certain things happen ( descriptors) that WILL give the Republicans as advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it ....

This is a conditional sentence about an event that has not happened. It refers to that event it can NOT be past tense. It might be questionable grammar, but it is not speaking of a past event. (I think it should have been "would have mishandled it")

[mzmolly]

52. Ah, so now this is about semantics/grammar. 911 happened. 911 was a terrorist attack.

They HAVE mishandled the issue poorly and as such should not be beneficiaries in the event of terrorism. Clear as crystal.

I'm not going to debate semantics, sorry.

[karynnj]

69. The phrase in context is speaking of future events

The reason this comes down to semantics is that Hillary's sentence has mixed the verb tenses. Note that everyone of her competitors took it that way. It is either a very badly written (or spoken) sentence or she is speaking of the conditional "thing" - the noun to which "it" refers.

PS Diagraming that sentence would not be an easy grade school task.

[jenmito]

26. I hope he says people will see the incompetence of the Repubs. if we're attacked again...

just like after Katrina, and that their "theory" that "we're fightin' 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here" has been proven wrong.

[usregimechange]

20. Amazing.

[mzmolly]

23. Oh puleeze. How ignorant that our Democrats help the Rs with the piling after shit like this.

Why not say something like ... "I don't think in terms of what party will be helped in the event of an attack, but I do know what party failed us on 911, and it wasn't Democrats."

Geeze, it's no wonder we lost in 2004. Democrats continually afraid to have an open dialog on "terror."

Hilary will get heat, but in the end, what she said was intelligent. She laid it on the line. They failed us, yet they win if we get hit again. Perhaps she's taken their biggest advantage from them? The Red Alert

[jenmito]

25. I disagree with her. I do NOT think the Repubs. will win if we get hit again...

in 2002 and 2004, yes, but by this point people are used to Bush and the Repubs.' line that "We're fightin' 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here." If we get hit again, that theory/line/scare tactic goes out the window.

[mzmolly]

32. I think her comment makes that less likely. And, I think the desire was to

start a conversation. One we've needed on this issue for some time.

[jenmito]

40. I disagree...

I think her comment was to make herself look like the strongest one to "fight" the Repubs. with a careless statement. I don't think it was to start a conversation at all other than to give her positive press. And it did just the opposite.

[mzmolly]

43. How does she look stronger with that comment? She didn't say "if I'm not the nominee

a terror attack will help Republicans." She said in spite of their failures a terror attack would likely help them. IE Bush and Osama are on the same side of American politics. The statement was appropriate and necessary. She chipped away at their tired tactic of 'fear/terror' before American elections.

[jenmito]

44. She doesn't, but she THINKS she does because she said SHE'S

the best one to deal with the "fact" that Repubs. will be helped by a terror attack. That was a stupid statement.

[mzmolly]

46. How is she the best? Bologna. There is no data indicating she is viewed as stronger on terror

than John Edwards or Bill Richardson or... in fact, it's likely the opposite.

[jenmito]

47. Ask her. SHE said she was the best candidate to deal with that.

That's why it was a stupid statement!

[mzmolly]

51. Generally that's what candidates claim.

"I'm the best, vote for me..." Though I didn't see that in the statement do you have a link/quote?

[jenmito]

70. How could you not have seen it? You posted her quote with all but the sentence you ask for...

"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.

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

[mzmolly]

71. Again, that's what candidates do.

Did Clark not claim he was "the best candidate" when he ran? Should Hillary have said "Richards is the best candidate, but vote for me instead." :eyes:

[jenmito]

72. You're changing the subject!

You said you don't know WHY she'd say that, then you asked for a quote proving she DID say that, and when provided one, you now say there was nothing wrong with it? Didn't you say it would be stupid of her to say such a thing and didn't you question WHY she'd say such a thing? Now you're making excuses for her and giving ME the rolling eyes?

We're talking about her comment in the first place, why she'd say it, why she'd be the best as she claimed, etc. Why would she SAY the Repubs. would benefit from another attack? That was stupid. Why does she think SHE'D be the best to deal with that situation? I think even YOU said that would be stupid of her to say. :eyes:

[mzmolly]

73. What I said WAS:

Though I didn't see that in the statement do you have a link/quote? Thanks for the quote to the part of her statement that proves she's campaigning. Again, much ado about nothing.

[jenmito]

74. So you see nothing wrong with what she said-that not only will the Repubs.

have the upper hand if we're attacked, but that SHE'S the best person to deal with that? She's underestimating the intelligence of Americans for her political gain.

[mzmolly]

77. I take her comments to mean she's the best person to deal with the politics?

And, I don't see anything wrong with that. She's campaigning. Further, I assume she expects a bit of heat for what she said. It's all part of the "game."

[jenmito]

79. So she's using a hypothetical, which she said she wouldn't answer, to turn a possible

terrorist attack to her political advantage, saying it would favor the REPUBS.? Dumb statement.

[karynnj]

30. The point is she did not make a case for herself or the party

In fact, for the party, she chose to pretty much agree that her Democratic opponents wouldn't handle it well - and it is not clear she means fighting that assumption politically or actually protecting the country.

As to 2004, the candidate DID speak of fighting terrorism. His intelligent, thoughtful positions are now backed by many - including conservatives. Hillary herself now has a pretty similar position. In 2004, he did NOT get a lot of support on this issue from other powerful Democrats. Bob Kerrey went so far as to call him wrong on Tora Bora - when Kerry in fact was correct.

Clinton would have been a very logical person to speak of Kerry's work on terrorism in the 1990s - because only he could have done it without making it seem like a criticism of Clinton, that he didn't back him. Instead, in his book put out in July, 2004, Clinton, in speaking of the 1996 elections includes a strange page or two speaking of how much he liked Weld, but how he didn't want to lose Kerry's expertise on technology and the environment. No mention of Kerry's foreign policy or terrorism expertise even though he was still editing the book well after Kerry was the nominee and those were the 2 biggest issues. It should be noted that Kerry is the only one where he suggests that he might have thought of possibly not backing him.

[mzmolly]

31. She did no such thing.

she chose to pretty much agree that her Democratic opponents wouldn't handle it well...

I'm not going to comment on 2004.

[karynnj]

34. I guess only you can bring up 2004

That is my interpretation of what she was saying - and there are others that got that too (from reading posts)

[mzmolly]

41. I didn't bring up 2004, but if SHE did good for her.

We can't complain about the Rovian "red alert" tactic and then expect that our candidates not acknowledge the fact that Americans are essentially brainwashed.

[karynnj]

49. yes, you did bring up 2004 in the post I responded to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3475416&mesg_id=3476883

She did not bring up 2004 - or the fact that we then had a policy quite close to her current position and that various conservatives have since agreed that it was the right policy.

[mzmolly]

53. I brought it up on the context of losing. If you want to rehash Kerry's lack of

mention of Republicans failing us on 911, we can take up that debate. If you want to blame Hilary because the Kerry campaign didn't do it's job I've got a record of my frustration in the archives that I'd be glad to call to your attention. For example, I called Kerry headquarters fairly regularly suggesting that they lay 911 at Bush's feet, they didn't even come close to doing so, until it was too late. I notified them of Bush's "I am not concerned about Osama" quote and was personally thanked by a member of the campaign via email. Again, they acted too late and ceded the issue of terror to the Republicans. If Hillary is stating she won't make that mistake GOOD FOR HER. She's moving up in my book.

[ProSense]

54. Hillary sure laid 9/11 at Bush's feet

before she kissed them:

(AP) Asked to say one nice thing about President Bush, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went one better: She named two things.

"He is someone who has a lot of charm and charisma, and I think in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was very grateful to him for his support for New York," Clinton said Tuesday night during a talk at the National Archives about her life in politics.

Clinton, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said that despite their "many disagreements about many, many issues," she has always had a good personal relationship with the president.

"He's been very willing to talk. He's been affable. He's been good company," said Clinton, D-N.Y.

link

[mzmolly]

56. She said he was polite after 911, big freakin deal. Here is what she said about one year ago today.

"If my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,'" as the Bush administration was, she said, "he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team." Hillary Clinton September ~ 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2494824

[ProSense]

58. "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq"

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link

If my husband this, If my husband that...Yeah, the Clintons say a lot!

And Hillary didn't say polite. She said, "He is someone who has a lot of charm and charisma..."

[mzmolly]

61. Sorry, wrong Clinton. Further I don't care if she said Bush had charm and charisma.

That's not what we're talking about here. Obviously the fool won the bogus "I'd rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry" contest because he has "charm." Even I can see that he's charming. That doesn't mean he's effective/competent.

[ProSense]

62. It's the Clinton that Hillary was talking about, when she said, "If my husband..." n/t

[mzmolly]

64. Not relevant. Circular bullshit. n/t

[ProSense]

66. No, obviously

her husband didn't do what she claimed he would have. He protected Bush. Very relevant.

[mzmolly]

67. Absurd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

Here's a refresher on his "protecting" Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Did you expect a Hillary coronation?

It's the primary season! The last thing we need is to replace a neocon imperialist with a neolib imperialist.

If you want a woman President, vote for Barbara Boxer!

[mzmolly]

45. I don't expect Democrats to be ignorant and help Republicans.

As for Hillary, I'm not supporting her unless she wins the nomination. Also, Barbara Boxer isn't running for President. Please don't cheapen Hillary's support to a vote for a vagina.

[ProSense]

38. Her comment was stupid!

What the hell kind of statement is that for a leader to say: If we get attacked (WTF?) the Republicans will gained the edge over every Democrat, but me.


Really absurd, ridiculous, stupid comment!

On edit: She is the one pushing a RW meme that was inaccurate to begin with. Six years after the 9/11 attacks, six years of Bush's failed policies and GOP stonewalling, the 2006 election successes behind her, and she is still helping to support a false perception that in all reality is now considered bogus, except among wingnuts. I guess next she'll be saying if we leave Iraq, Republicans will have an edge if the violence escalates. BS!

[IndianaGreen]

48. Hllary will say that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us here.

Oh, wait! She already said that in so many words!

[mzmolly]

57. Sorry, what the hell do you think we had Osama tapes pulled out before the last election for?

Republicans have always been able to pull the wool over American eyes when it comes to their false "we're tough on terror" position. Hillary called us out. Good for her. Now we'll see a necessary conversation on this issue that's been lacking for far too long.

She's not promoting that Republicans are tougher, she said in spite of their failures they can still play the terror card. Again, good for her!

[ProSense]

60. No she said a terror attack

will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it...

That's ridiculous!

[mzmolly]

63. It's not ridiculous. If a freaking TAPE gives them the advantage an attack

surely would. - Hopefully, that will change as a result of the dialog Clinton is encouraging? However, why do you think before the last election many on DU FEARED another LIHOP/MIHOP?

Goodnight. :hi:

[ProSense]

65. People on DU aren't running for president!

Hillary is!

An attack on America now would not equal Republican advantage. That's silly!

[mzmolly]

68. People on DU are running in circles chasing their proverbial tails.

Have fun.

[illinoisprogressive]

36. the media is ignoring it though she has a proven flipping on this.

she doesnt' do hypothetical and this is one.
I saw on Russert tonight the guests, Cilizza and Todd, say she refuses to answer any difficult questions.
They both say she is running Bush's 2000 campaign. I thought the same so I was pleased.
they said some really intersting stuff.
look for the rerun at 9:00 cst.

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. hasn't every one on DU said the same thing? And accused

the timed Bin Laden video releases as staged events to help Bush and the repos?

[mzmolly]

59. Yep, we also comment on the "Red alert" shit before elections.

But, it's not ok for a candidate to mention it apparently?

Hillary, in essence, said she knows what they are up to. And frankly, she's moved up a notch in my book because of this comment.

[paulk]

76. thanks for a clear and insightful series of posts on this subject

nice to see some logic on this topic - it's getting to be a rare commodity on DU these days...

[mzmolly]

78. Thank you Paulk for the kind response.

:hi:

[BenDavid]

55. Did anyone writing hate about what HRC

said, read the entire part of the speech? I doubt it! So, I post it here and you find the key words in there and see exactly what she was referencing:
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press 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."

We all know this would happen because the fickle public would rally around this sorry excuse, and we all know this scenario would happen. She stated the obvious and I see nothing wrong in her pointing this out.....

I do thank you
Ben David