h1

What Color Is The Sky On Hillary Clinton’s Home Planet?

August 24, 2007

I’m a little late to post on this one, but I thought I’d comment on this absurd comment from Mrs. Clinton:

“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.

Say WHA….?  What kind of triple backflip inverse logical reasoning is that?  Bush and the GOP have been banking on the “no attacks since 9/11” line for quite awhile now.  Heck, we saw Cheney blurt out “make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again” before the ’04 elections.  How in the hell can both the lack of an attack and an attack be to their advantage? 

Look, I’d like to think that another terrorist attack would be to no American’s advantage, politically or otherwise.  Maybe I’m just naive, but I have no idea where Clinton is coming up with this notion, or what might have motivated her to say this.  Am I missing something here?  Or, is she just acknowledging the fact that, unfortunately, people really fall for the “vote for me, and I’ll keep you safe”, followed by the “See!, I told you that you need us to keep you safe!” after an attack happens? 

I’m not sure why Clinton wouldn’t have just gotten out right in front of it preemptively, instead of giving us this lame line:

“So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,” she added.

 I wanted to check on some of the other blogs’ reactions, and I found one from a righty blogger that I respect for his intellectual honesty, Allahpundit:

Of course she’s right. For one thing, people tend to rally to their leader when they’re attacked. The single biggest security lapse in American history happened on Bush’s watch six years ago. How’d his approval ratings look two weeks later?

I’ll have to disagree with Allah on this one.  Terrorism wasn’t a front-burner issue when we were attacked on 9/11, and Bush was still a relatively new president.  People forgot about hanging chads in Florida pretty quick.  But what would we do now?  Insist we invade another country?  It’s just hard for me to picture another attack being anything other than bona fide proof that 6 years after 9/11, Bush has actually pulled of the incredible feat of making the situation worse for us.  All the “fight them over there”, and “follow us home” and “democracy will defeat the ideology” sloganeering would suddenly be revealed to be the crap that it always was.  In a sane world, another attack would be bad for every American, but especially the GOP.  In a sane world…

Advertisements

10 comments

  1. The idea of another attack before the 2008 election would go against everything the GOP has drilled into everyones head. It would leave Rudy at a loss on many of his speeches and platform.

    I think the big problem with Hillary is she panders so much to the crowd she is in front of, that her comments are contradictory and/or confusing.


  2. As strange as it might seem I think she’s right. The problem for the Democrats is that their progressive base complains hysterically about every attempt at fighting terrorism (Wiretaps, watchlists, survielance, arrests, trials, etc). Every time a terror plot is uncovered progressives question the timing, claim it’s an inside job, the perpetrators were innocent (just joking, inept, not serious, etc).
    Conservatives haven’t stolen the issue of terrorism, liberals abandoned it. Progressives don’t even want to declare war on terrorism (It’s just a bumper sticker). I think progressives have driven their politicians off the left wing cliff on the issue of terrorism.


  3. “How in the hell can both the lack of an attack and an attack be to their advantage?”

    In a way it can be, but not without a bit of propaganda™. In case of an attack they say; “See? We where right about this threat! You need us to protect you!”
    And in case of no attack they go: “See? Our war on terror is working, we’re not being attacked anymore. You need us to keep you safe!”


  4. See? Even Sphinx gets it.
    Howdy Sphinx.


  5. Hey there Killgore. I guess the “even Sphinx gets it” might have not been very positive, but I guess I’ll let that pass. Forgive me if I’m wrong.


  6. It’s called a “backhanded compliment”.
    /Just a little good natured fun


  7. We have loads of that where I come from. Appreciated 🙂


  8. Well, I guess I can’t speak for all progressives, but I suppose the reason why people would think that revelations about terror plots would be politically timed is because we never really heard about them before 9/11, even though there were certainly people working day and night to stop them. And in that context, the “war on terror” is seen as a slogan because the “war” has been going on for decades, in which 9/11 is a battle that we lost (or at least a situation where our net of protection failed). Progressives may generally view Bush’s use of the phrase more as an excuse to claim more power than symbolic of a well-intentioned exercise in fighting terrorism. In other words, more power is what they wanted, and fighting terrorism is merely the excuse. It doesn’t make sense to me to ascribe Bush special powers under the banner of being “at war” or a “wartime president” when the “war” is really the same “war” that was presided over by Clinton and possibly even Reagan.


  9. the Clintons are very adept at using what they see as working for their opponents. This is the tail wagging Hillary. The far left has been spewing that nonsense for months, and she has co-opted the line to firm up those votes.


  10. […] Now, before I continue, I suppose I should note that I have addressed this issue before here in the Chamber: What Color Is The Sky On Hillary Clinton’s Home Planet? […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: