Sunday, August 26, 2007

Two out of three ain't bad, Hillary. Even accidentally.

Rivals Slam Clinton For Terrorism Comments

One example supporting that headline is this comment by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT):
"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States."
Here's what Hillary said to attract Dodd's ire:
"There are circumstances beyond our control, and I think I am better able to handle things I have no control over," she said. "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," she said. "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well."
Putting aside the grammar and logic problems of "handling things I have no control over," Hillary's first point is that She's survived numerous things over which She has no control by making them invisible - "bimbo eruptions" not least. Her second point is that an attack on the United States would be nothing but a political statement by enemies who think such an attack would boost the prospects of the party most likely to appease. Hillary knows better, even if she has no idea how to handle such crises aside from ignoring them.

Her third point is that the Republicans would welcome an attack (that they could mishandle) because it would improve their political prospects (though this would be the the opposite of al-Qaeda's intention). That's two out of three, sort of, and therefore better than any other Democrat.

This third point seems to be a sort of Democrat reverse projection. We know from Senate Majority Leader Harry "The War is Lost" Reid that the Democrats see failure in Iraq as a given. Reid has said he won't believe anything General David Petraeus says next month about the situation in Iraq. We also know, from House Democrat Whip James Clyburn, that progress in Iraq would be "trouble for us." "Us" being Democrats.

In accord with this fecklessness, Senator Dodd proposes that we should wait to consider political implications until after we're attacked? Look at it this way, if the Japanese had realized the political consequences of attacking the United States in December of 1944, they may well not have.

It's one thing to whine about the fact that your political party is generally considered weak on national security issues, it's quite another to confirm that weakness by attacking your next leader when She points it out.

1 comment:

RightMichigan.com said...

And that closing sentence says it all.

Nice work.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com