Hillary Clinton on the possibility of another terrorist attack
First off, I’d like to thank Jules for the opportunity to help keep up the place while he’s away getting into heaven only knows what kind of trouble. With the stellar cast of bloggers and writers he’s assembled, I feel sort of like the geek who has been invited to hang out with the cool crowd :) . So I’ve thrown a lavender scarf over the tavern lamp here at the dark corner table I currently occupy, and away we go …
The post title may seem a bit odd, I know. I mean, no one wants another terrorist attack, right? Well, ok, maybe you do if you’re a far left blogger at the Huffington Post fantasizing about all the ‘good’ another attack could bring to this country in terms of spreading the ‘benefits’ of a socialistic-style agenda, but I digresss …
Anyway, candidate Clinton was campaigning in New Hampshire yesterday and, as the NY Post reports, gave a very peculiar reason why she’s hoping we don’t see another terrorist attack in this country - at least not before next year’s elections, anyway:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year’s election, warning that it could boost the GOP’s efforts to hold on to the White House.
Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.
“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.
Got that? Another terrorist attack in the next year or so on American soil would be horrifying to think of, because it might give the GOP an election-year advantage. Bbbbbut if it does happen, don’t worry: If elected, she’ll ‘deal with it.’ Sure. Right after she gets done drawing down US troops in Iraq in short order, in spite of the fact that she’s aware, but uncaring (along with other prominent Democrats), of the fact that an Iraq without US forces there to protect them at this point would face certain genocide.
That the sitting Senator of the state which suffered the greatest number of losses on 9-11 would make these kinds of blatantly self-serving remarks about the possibility of another terrorist attack happening before the 2008 elections are very telling as to what her priorities are, and they have nothing to do with protecting the American people, but instead protecting Hillary Clinton’s chances of getting elected to serve as the first female president and Commander in Chief.
Ick. Just thinking about the possiblity that La Clinton could be in charge of our armed forces gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Bartender!
Topics: Clintons
Posted by Sister Toldjah at 10:47 am on Friday, August 24, 2007
21 Responses to “Hillary Clinton on the possibility of another terrorist attack”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:59 am
[...] has nothing to do with protecting the American people. Read her comments and my response to them here. Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: General, Election ‘08, Elections, Clueless Wonders, The Clintons [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Here’s something to ponder: if there were another terrorist attack on US soil before the elections, why would that be a boost to the GOP? Is it, possibly, that the electorate don’t trust the Dems to do anything about it?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
And, of course, this latest nausea inducing spew from Hillary! also demonstrates her own (not to mention the Dhimmicrats in general) href=”http://www.coalitionoftheswilling.net/archives/2007/08/now_hang_on_a_g.html”>self-serving hypocrisy.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Rats! Messed that up. Trying again.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I don’t think I could stand any more of the Clintons. I never went into Clinton hatred the way so many did. What’s the use. I never expected anything from him in the first place, and I wasn’t disappointed.
I couldn’t stand her from the git-go. When she tried to cram socialized medicine down our throats, that was the end. Of course, she succeeded more than most people realize. The medical profession’s actions to try to stave off being enslaved by the state had the affect of putting hand-cuffing on themselves. Just imagine what would happen if she had real power.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
[...] Sister Toldjah Jules Crittenden Bookmark to: Sphere: Related [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
[...] 24th, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën Not sure whether this was a particular wise thing to say: Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Why ST, it’s so nice to see you in this neighborhood.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“Hillary Clinton on the possibility of another terrorist attack”
You don’t understand people. Hillary is making a threat or a promise…Meaning elect her. That IS the terrorist attack!
August 24th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Nice post !
The Dems don’t care about security, only power.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“Here’s something to ponder: if there were another terrorist attack on US soil before the elections, why would that be a boost to the GOP? Is it, possibly, that the electorate don’t trust the Dems to do anything about it?”
Right. Because that one bearded guy who directed airplanes into the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people. They totally nabbed him so he can’t do it anymore. Right?
August 24th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I picked up a copy of Time magazine (gag) in a doctor’s office a few months ago and was disgusted to see this same point made in an article about the race. They quoted one of Hilary’s handlers saying blithely that she *expects* that there will be another attack before the election. They made it sound like just another variable in the political calculus.
Who was it who said, “no matter how cynical I get I can’t keep up”?
August 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Sarah - “No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up. ” is a quote attributed to Lily Tomlin and definitely fits this story.
***************************************************************************************
Why don’t the American people trust the Democrats to defend this country? Just look at Mrs. Clinton’s political calculus. To paraphrase James Carville “It’s all about POWER, stupid.”
August 24th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Right. Because that one bearded guy who directed airplanes into the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people. They totally nabbed him so he can’t do it anymore. Right?
And this matter how……?
August 24th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Well cornhole if Bill had killed the man when he had the chance we would not even be talking about that now would we?
Besides, what’s the big deal. 3,000 here, 3,000 there. Bearded guys cutting off people’s heads and screeching God is Great in Arabic…no biggee.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hillary is just completely mercenary is all. It is all about her.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Good point, Terry. Clinton had several chances to ace Osama, and let them slip by. But then, if Clinton had taken the initiative, what talking points would corndog have to recite?
August 25th, 2007 at 10:45 am
[...] –Jules Crittenden: Got that? Another terrorist attack in the next year or so on American soil would be horrifying to think of, because it might give the GOP an election-year advantage. Bbbbbut if it does happen, don’t worry: If elected, she’ll ‘deal with it.’ Sure. Right after she gets done drawing down US troops in Iraq in short order, in spite of the fact that she’s aware, but uncaring (along with other prominent Democrats), of the fact that an Iraq without US forces there to protect them at this point would face certain genocide. [...]
August 25th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Right. Because that one bearded guy who directed airplanes into the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people. They totally nabbed him so he can’t do it anymore. Right?
Unfortunately, we didn’t get the satisfaction of “nabbing him”, as you say. All we did was push him into a series of caves and mud huts located in the ass end of the universe, where he is currently pushing up poppies after a protracted bout of kidney disease/typhoid/take your pick of medieval diseases that might have been treated in a modern 21st century hospital. Oh, and we killed off 75% of al-Qaeda’s leadership in Iraq. So, I’m not losing any sleep over Osama bin Done-away-with, thank you very much.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Good oh, Rebecca. You do have a way about you (that I wish like hell that I had).
Corndog makes the mistake many of his fellow travelers make. They seem to think that we are fighting a kind of a political civil war among Americans. Too bad the enemy doesn’t see us that way. The enemy seems to think that whatever side of the political spectrum an infidel inhabits doesn’t matter, except as propaganda. They’ve never confined their kidnapping and murder of American citizens to one party or the other. They didn’t check to make sure that only one party occupied the three American Embassies they destroyed. Do you think that just one party was represented by the men and women of the U.S.S. Cole? Or the Marine barracks in Lebanon? Or the Twin Towers?
I’d bet that the enemy didn’t give a damn whether they were murdering and maiming Democrats or Republicans, or any other particular political party. I’d bet they just focus their hate on “Americans.” How unPC of them to stereotype us like that! How racist! That’s Americaphobia! Hasn’t someone told the UN? Or Brussels?
August 25th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Right. Because when the CIA says the al Qaeda is now stronger than ever, that must mean the Republcans are strong on national security. Also, it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault.