Hillary: Terror attack would benefit GOP
posted at 2:36 pm on August 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The lefty reaction to this at Memeorandum is amusing, ranging from the usual fightin’ nutroots lament that she’s not enough of a fighter to “she’s probably right — but don’t say it out loud.” 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?
Oddly, the left has no difficulty understanding this phenomenon in the context of Iran. They remind us endlessly, and correctly, that the surest way to take the edge off Iranians’ animus towards the mullahs would be to send a few smart bombs down the chimney, notwithstanding the extent to which the regime’s policies would have been responsible for precipitating the crisis. Bush would benefit from the same siege effect here and his party would get a boost by extension. It’s a fact of group psychology. Democrats have benefited from it, too. Get over it. Besides, terrorism is the GOP’s core talking point; by contrast, when asked point blank a few weeks ago each to name their top three policy priorities, Harold Ford and Screw Them couldn’t come up with one mention of terror between them. Incompetence — the kind of “incompetence” that’s bought us six years without an attack — can be fixed with a change of management, in which case why wouldn’t a voter prefer someone like Giuliani or Romney or McCain who’s vocal about the threat to someone who can’t mention the word “jihad” without looking like they’re passing a stone?
Beyond that, does the left really not understand how its unerring instinct to find fault with its own side makes it suspicious to most people in a crisis? Even before the campaign season started, their leading lights couldn’t choke out two sentences about Al Qaeda without tagging it to Bush somehow — Bush’s war of choice, Bush’s broken DHS, Bush’s failure to seal the deal at Tora Bora, etc. All fair criticisms, all undeniably “on message,” all increasingly creepy when used in volume to qualify denunciations of jihadist Nazis. The annoyance at Hillary here is further evidence of the problem: it’s premised on the idea that the public can and should perceive a new strike less as an attack on America — and as proof that the GOP line on the gravity of the threat is essentially true — than as a Bush policy failure. All terrorist acts are preventable, after all, and the threat’s not so dire that we shouldn’t be able to stop it every time, so let’s stay focused and fight the real enemy in the White House.
Mix that with their love affair with cretinous conspiracy theories meant to minimize terrorism and you’ve got the makings of a big ol’ bowl of trust. And the punchline? Hillary actually did follow their line in emphasizing that the inevitable GOP boost would be totally undeserved. Quote:
“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.
In other words, she’s way out in front on this and laying the groundwork for the left’s response, and they hate her for it anyway because she’s not in denial like they are. Reality based.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Ho hum, I think I have heard this before…like before every election.
They could save the enviornment by just re-cycling old newspapers with the same idiotic claims.
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Next conspiracy movie from the Left: “Loose October Surprise”
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 24, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Pathetic actually to even think of it in political terms. This is One country. The USofA. If we are attacked by terrorists, we should act like adults and blame who committed the acts, not cry that someone on the other side of the aisle is to blame, or may be helped politically. That shouldn’t matter.
Hillary frightens me to the core.
bridgetown on August 24, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Idiotic because the insinuation is that we want that to happen, or we want a disaster to happen, or we want war to happen, just to gain votes.
They think that we have the same mind-set as them…votes at any cost.
Wrong again you liberal fools.
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Wait, does this mean that she doesn’t want another major terrorist attack targeting Americans because it would be, well, bad for Americans, or because it would be good for Republicans?
Leonidas Hoplite on August 24, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Im sure the victims of said attack will want to play politics at that time.
Its almost like Hillary is standing on Ground Zero on September 12th and saying “Its a shame that President Bush is getting a big boost out of this attack politically”
Right over the graves of the dead.
William Amos on August 24, 2007 at 2:43 PM
She accuses the Republicans of mishandling terrorism. This coming from the wife of the man who pardoned terrorists as one of his final presidential acts.
Since 9/11, how many terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil? NONE! I’m not seeing the alleged mishandling. What we have seen are the Democrats constantly trying to restrain the U.S. government from doing what is needed to fight terrorism.
Hillary thinks the world is a more dangerous place because of the Republicans. Newsflash for Hillary: the world was already a dangerous place and the U.S. was asleep at the wheel. Now that the U.S. is trying to make the world a safer place by taking on the terrorists in their turf, the U.S. news media is paying closer attention, which in turn gives terrorists more exposure. Yet, Hillary interprets that exposure as proof that the world is a more dangerous place.
jediwebdude on August 24, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Yes, Hillary is publicly telling her jihadi comrades not to attack right now, wait until after the election and then, with Democrats in power, we can surrender to you.
Maxx on August 24, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Heh. That sounds a lot like what some loser named Dukakis said 3 days ago. I hope she is getting campaign advice from him.
http://www.observer.com/node/57075
Brat on August 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM
If she told me the sky was blue and the grass was green, I’d think I was wrong and color blind all these years.
PowWow on August 24, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I’ve often wondered if the reason we haven’t had another major (spectacular) attack here, is more strategic than a result of any prevention.
Sure, we’ve picked off some low-hanging fruits - but those groups were only franchised AQ types.
Are the big AQ types not able to get an attack off, or are they biding their time until the can face a President/Congress who won’t vaporize them, immediately?
I hope it’s the former since the latter may well prove them right.
yo on August 24, 2007 at 2:50 PM
The American people will never elect this woman president.
Labamigo on August 24, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Makes sense to me…must lay the groundwork by blaiming the Pubs before anything happens and grudgingly agreeing the Iraqi war is working but not diplomatically.
Miss_Anthrope on August 24, 2007 at 2:54 PM
She’s already thinking general election and angling for that all-important Osama endorsement.
Did wonders for Lerch.
JammieWearingFool on August 24, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Outstrategize them???
This is trying to do the right thing, you schmuck!
Miss_Anthrope on August 24, 2007 at 2:56 PM
It sounds to me like she is admitting the Dems would be soft on terror. It’s just a signal to her friends that they shouldn’t do anything until after the election.
“Dear Hil, thanks for the heads up on that. I’ll tell the boys to hold off.
Regards
Abu”
BobK on August 24, 2007 at 2:56 PM
This women looks completely insane in about 50% of her photos. My god, it’s going to be flipflopMitt vs. Her. Think I’ll migrate to Mexico.
Masscon on August 24, 2007 at 2:56 PM
You’re absolutely right and as I said in response to a post the other day, as goes the Communist meme, for Democrats: “There is only the party.”
CP on August 24, 2007 at 2:56 PM
LOL! That’s the quote of the month!!
crazy_legs on August 24, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Good rant, AP.
frankj on August 24, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Hey!
Where is Bill Clinton anyway?
Question.
Is the Clinton’s own “surge” marriage working so far?
Kokonut on August 24, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Hillary knows what she is talking about from personal experience. If it were not for the failed policies of Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and Maddie notsobright; the atrocities of 9/11/01 would never have happened. That set up the conditions where the “rats” had to run against a wartime President in 2006. That meant John Kerry got the nomination because of his “combat” record instead of selecting some other candidate say, for example, the self-described “smartest-woman-in-America.” Another terrorist attack now would be devestating to the Clinton campaign because Hillary would not only have to defend her voting record on Iraq but also all the ways her husband ignored the tell-tale signs of the 9/11/01 atrocities. Obama would end up revisiting his statements that the first role of the President in times of a terror attack is to ensure that first responders have enough funding for training. John Edwards would have to describe his contingincy plans for going on national television without benefit of a hair stylist.
highhopes on August 24, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Found him! He’s RULER OF THE PLANET!!!!
Read it all if you can stand it. Count the instances of “I” and “me.” It’s clearly all about him, you know, the ruler of the planet.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20303152/
Brat on August 24, 2007 at 4:01 PM
The fear of terror attacks to the Dems is lost votes. Screw the lost lives of Americans, they need to get elected.
Hening on August 24, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Yep, she’s sending signals to any nut group out there that would like to destroy, bomb, or crush the American people to just hold off, they’ll get their chance. Once elected and the worst occurs, she promises to seek assistance from the UN, the EU, ME spokesman and we’ll all talk. Years of negotiations before we surrender. Oh, and thousands of hearings to determine how the Repubs ignored the threats.
Plus, she’ll double foreign aid like Obama promised to do, just to make sure they know we’re their friend and harbor no hard feelings over losing one or more cities.
24K lady on August 24, 2007 at 4:35 PM
All this really does is reinforce the idea that the Left will never be serious about this struggle and remain unfit to lead. Their base may be a bunch of crackpots, but if the Democrat party truly believed that Islamofacists were a serious threat, they’d be doing a lot less political calculation. At least this blatant.
Asher on August 24, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Why not just label this “Hillary admits that DEMs are weak on terrorism” and be done with it.
Buzzy on August 24, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Yep. Only the Dims view terror attacks from the perspective of politics, rather than being concerned with our security and well being. And they wonder why the American people trust a GOP leader more than a Dim when it comes to national security.
Mallard T. Drake on August 24, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Only the naive and foolish (e.g. leftists) see the world through rose-colored lenses. The world is and always will be a dangerous place, the war in Iraq notwithstanding. They’re kidding themselves if they think the world was safer before Bush. After all, if it was safer before Bushitler and the Iraq War, why did 9/11 happen? And the WTC bombings in ‘93? And Oklahoma? And those are just some of the US terrorism attacks.
But, even if the GOP candidates are more vocal about the war on terror, their positions on it are moot if they’re not going to seal the border.
wherestherum on August 24, 2007 at 5:53 PM
When Hillary Clinton refers to the Republican constituency as “The Right Wing Noise Machine” she has crossed the line of debating issues to debasing the will of the people. Regardless of her party affiliation Hillary totally exposed her real feelings about all regular 9-5 citizens in one fell swoop. It is beyond me how a person who was born to a privileged life who can’t name a single notable accomplishment of her own can claim to be an advocate for the African American community in this country. She is worse than Al sharpton, at least Rev Al is Black! Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a another white feminist opportunist riding on the back of a legitamate civil rights movement of the sixties. She has plagiarized credible civil rights leaders by charging the emotions of the black community with outdated claims of racial inequality. She does the same thing within the feminist movement. Her old stale rhetoric is well past it expiration date. This country needs to unify and come to grips that no matter how bad people may see things the freedom we enjoy as a nation allows US to change our own circumstances no matter what they are. The phrase ‘Use It or Lose It” was coined to describe freedom. Besides most of her big government program oriented ideology is designed to appeal to the path of least resistance in the human psyche which is conducive to dumbing down and dishonesty of every sort as proved with the 40 plus years since LBJ and MOYERS Great Society failed experiment. The reaction from the citizens of New Orleans trying to cope with hurricane Katrina is a national televised example of the helplessness and frustrated condition this style of governance produces. I saw only one person step up into a leadership role and that was the teenager who stole a bus to rescue his family.
sonnyspats1 on August 24, 2007 at 11:52 PM