How Revealing
Sometimes an off-hand remark really says it all. As The New York Post points out, Hillary Clinton admitted to dreading another terrorist attack, not because it would kill Americans, cripple the economy or embolden our foes . . . but because it nmight offer Republicans a political advantage.
In truth, however, it's not fair to single Hillary out. She's hardly the only Democrat who sees the war on terror through little more than a political lens. Harsh as it is, the truth is that many Democrats couldn't care less about defeating Al Qaeda -- terrorists matter only insofar as they represent a political advantage (if the war isn't going well) or a political detriment (if there's an attack, or if the war in Iraq begins to turn around).
That's why so many lefties -- with, admittedly, a few honorable exceptions -- are so reluctant to concede that Iraq might be winnable.
Then again, this kind of evidently crass opportunism and profound lack of seriousness when it comes to national security issues may be the one reason why, despite all the circumstances working against them, there's still a good fighting chance that American voters will elect a Republican Commander in Chief next year.
In truth, however, it's not fair to single Hillary out. She's hardly the only Democrat who sees the war on terror through little more than a political lens. Harsh as it is, the truth is that many Democrats couldn't care less about defeating Al Qaeda -- terrorists matter only insofar as they represent a political advantage (if the war isn't going well) or a political detriment (if there's an attack, or if the war in Iraq begins to turn around).
That's why so many lefties -- with, admittedly, a few honorable exceptions -- are so reluctant to concede that Iraq might be winnable.
Then again, this kind of evidently crass opportunism and profound lack of seriousness when it comes to national security issues may be the one reason why, despite all the circumstances working against them, there's still a good fighting chance that American voters will elect a Republican Commander in Chief next year.
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:00 PM
9 Comments:
Bush keeps lowering the bar on what a victory would look like. It seems like he'll call it a win before he leaves office even though Iraq will lay in ruins, with no or little functioning central government.
The statements made in this piece are highly misleading. Here's the actual remark made by Ms. Clinton:
"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," she said. "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that, as well."
Thus, your opening statement is patently false because it include negative clauses that are not substantiated by the quote.
The second paragraph is based on falsehood as well. If you consult any of the many news stories this remark triggered, they have headlines such as "Clinton's Democratic Rivals Denounce Terrorism Remark" (Washington Post); "Clinton draws Democrats' ire with remark" (Houston Post); "Clinton's Terror Talk Has Rivals on Attack" (Washington Post); "Dem Rivals Rap Clinton on Terror Comment" (ABC News). It therefore appears that you have presented the reverse of the truth.
Your third paragraph is a non-sequitur.
Your fourth paragraph strikes me as whistling past the graveyard. Yes, it's too early to call the 2008 election. So I'd like to put the question to you: if there were a terrorist attack just before the 2008, do you think that it would help the Democrats or the Republicans?
You get your news from the New York Post?
Jeeze!
Gotta say it - Cheap shot coming in 5,4,3,2,... You get your news from the NY Times? Jeeze!
Chepe,
Even the full text you've cited of Hillary Clinton's comment shows that her focus regarding another terrorist attack is a political one.
It may also represent somewhat of a Freudian slip in that she admits that any increased attention by the public on national security "automatically" favors Republicans. What does that say about Democrats in general?
her focus regarding another terrorist attack is a political one.
No, that's not what the quote says. She was discussing political issues and mentioned one factor that would affect political dynamics. The mention of one factor does not constitute a statement of the speaker's complete analysis of that factor.
she admits that any increased attention by the public on national security "automatically" favors Republicans. What does that say about Democrats in general?
That is precisely what the other Democrats jumped on her for. But I'd like to turn the tables on you: please answer the question I put to Ms. Liebau:
If there were a terrorist attack just before the 2008 election, do you think that it would help the Democrats or the Republicans?
It was pointed out elsewhere (I think it was over at AmericanThinker) that the Left is in favor of all sorts of things that are fundamentally detrimental to the US because they give a short term advantage to the Left. This statement from Hillary is a typical example of that. Others of that sort are the support given by the Left for unlimited immigration, for increased government dependence, for attacks on marriage, for attacks on the Second Ammendment, etc.
S, could you explain how the LACK of a terrorist attack is detrimental to the USA?
I enjoy the political gamesmanship on this and other blogs as much as anyone else. Sometimes its fun to kick around on a topic just for the back and forth of it.
But when it comes to national security in general and a terrorist attack in particular, there's no room for political jockying. It's far too serious a matter.
Personally, I see no one being "helped" by another terrorist attack in America. I think everyone gets hurt, especially Muslims.
One of my deepest fears is that another deadly terrorist attack will occur and Americans will become so enraged that we will no longer try to "play nice" in this war. By no means has the United States unleashed its dogs of war. To the contrary, every effort we've made in this war has been decidedly "leashed".
It would be a collosal tragedy if, due to the madness of a particular sect of Islam, the U.S. were to truly unleash its destructive capabilities - and I'm not talking about nukes, either. I don't want to pound the Middle East into oblivian. I'd much rather see that region prosper peacefully.
That's why I support President Bush's doctrine of freeing the region from the madmen so the people of that region can develop peaceful, prosperous societies.
Post a Comment
<< Home