All I can say is that I don,t like Bill and whats her name. Its hard to say which is the
dummy and which is ventriloquist. If its true that the last impression you get is probably the truest then Bill is probably the most dispecable president we have ever had. Dosen't anyone remember what he did to his intern in the white house and the lies he told being dragged out of office.

If anyone who is envolved in gvt. work requiring a security clearence would do what he has done then they would imediately loose their clearance and be looking for a new job. Well he cant get his old job back but he can guide Hiliary by remote control to achieve his distorted goals.

What do you think Bush has been using the entire time that he's been in office? Terrorism. It's like every third word that comes out of his mouth. When miss Clinton says it, though, it suddenly becomes tasteless. I think she's got guts for saying what she said. I hate how people cover their mouths and gasp at it, try and sweep those thoughts under the rug. She represents people, so she's saying what many people have on their minds. There's no reason to plaster censors on everything in order to keep things squeaky clean. Things aren't squeaky clean, why deny it? Whether there's proof of what she said or not, is a different story. There's evidence on either side, I'm certain. What disgusts me the most is that people, once again, attack the person rather than the matter. It's funny how naive people can be. People shrug off this idea that maybe the United States had something to do with these terrorist attacks. Why must everyone have this ideal that something like that could never happen? How are people excluding terrorism from politics? That's what it has been all along. I am sure that advisers told her not to say what she said and I'm sure she knew that it was a bad political move. If you think about it that way, maybe she is genuinely concerned about an attack before the elections, and wanted to go on record to saying it in case it does happen. There's no way to know for sure. Hopefully brining this to light may keep any such attack at bay. Either way, it's better to keep an open mind and not get too comfy.

Keith, Denver, Co,

"We've already seen the Clinton's effort, or the lack thereof, against terrorism. In the 8 years they spent in the White House, we saw our Embassies, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc all get attacked with little to no response from the Clinton's. Their spineless efforts cannot be allowed to happen again!"

Maybe Clinton's response was tempered by the repubs in congress who cut his anti terror-legislation (cuz they "didn't want a police state") and the fact that when Clinton sent over missiles to take him out, you repubs actually complained - yelled "Wag the Dog" and "No WAR for MONICA" remember?

I do! And now you guys are the same ones crying like babies "Why didn't Clinton do enough?" Tell me, where was all your "get them there before they come here" back then?

Simple FACT: Repubs were more concerned with the authenticity of DNA stains on a blue dress then protecting this country from terrorism.

We've already seen Dubya do NOTHING about the above before 911 too. Except give $43 million to the Taliban (who harbored Al Queada) and then GO ON VACATION!

At least Clinton did NEXT to nothing and TRIED to get Osama via missiles. Dubya didn't even do that much PRE-911 did he?

Cuz Dubya's been spineless before AND after 911.

Tell us, what has Dubya done SINCE 911 to capture Osama? Funnel off resources that could be used to capture Osama?

Check!

Let him escape from Tora Bora?

Check!

Dismantle the terrorism unit charged with finding him?

CHECK!

Tell me, is Osama even wanted "dead or alive" anymore? … cuz Dubya said he's "really not concerned with him" and, in light of the above actions, I think he may have actually told the truth for once.

Enlighten us wont you?

Typical CFR response to the American people, gotta spread that fear

I usually check these posts not to learn anything informative but to see how Democratic opinion is trending. Normally any article about HRC generates about 90 percent anti-Clinton comment. This time it seems to be closer to two-thirds for and one-third against. So I guess this means that she must have spoken the truth about the GOP seizing on any future attack before the 2008 election. What a breakthrough that Democrats for not-the-Hillary can't find an effective way to spin her honest comment. This may be caused by the simple fact than anyone who has been living in America for the last seven years and not in a coma is willing to concede the obvious fact that what Hillary said is plainly true. Most of us have been waiting for the timely capture of Bin Laden for years, although they may have to dig him up as evidence. I doubt anything as fancy os the WTC attack is in the works, but the Statue of Liberty has been closed for years and may already be wired, which would be a good substitute. Gee, I hope this isn't too conspiratorial a suggestion.

"There are circumstances beyond our control, and I think I am better able to handle things I have no control over,"

You mean like you did with Bill??

If as Hilary Clinton states "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well" then America truly is in serious trouble. To vote for Hilary Clinton would be the worst mistake any reasonably conscious individual could ever perpetuate upon him/her self while bring America to further demise. Only a fool would believe as Hilary says, "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," when Hilary as did so many other Democrats, she voted for the war in Iraq and against taking a stance against illegal immigrants as well as other domestic issues that would have benefited American. To place sole blame on the Republicans is merely a demonstration of the democrats’ lack of an agenda and Hilary Clinton’s arrogances and lack of respect for the America people.

She told the truth!!! Everytime the polls went down, we were told of intelligence chatter and another color was changed. I'm tired of living under threats by this administration. I've said what Hillary said all along, learn to deal with the truth. It might be refreshing for a change. Go Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just think it makes Hillary look worse when she can't rely on her own talents (if any) and job experience )(if any) that would qualify her for President. Saying that something bad happening for the country would shooin for Republican candidate is just hateful.

The funny thing is, of all these people Ron Paul makes the most sense and doesn't really play polit. games, but the stuff he wants to do isn't really practical and possible. The fed. govt takes toolong to do stuff, so his ideas wouldn 't happen in our lifetimes.

I'm sorry, but just what experience does everyone (at least every supporter) keep pointing at that Hillary is supposed to have? I guess if we keep mentioning the two together long enough, some of us might begin to associate them and actually believe that she has any. For someone who "loathes the military," (her words not mine) just when did she gain this appreciation for the armed services and develop this experience of leading anything? What has she ever done to qualify her? Seriously? We’ve no time for privileged amateurs and need someone more capable to lead and serve as Cdr and chief?! It's absolutely laughable! When she says she can react the best to unknowns, does she mean taking real action or is that more Clinton-speak for simply re-writing history in the third person.

Sorry for missing you in Concord, Hillary, but thanks for a good weekend chuckle!

She is stupid. To wish to lose inocent lifes for her gains to became the president of USA,
Shamful of Hillary. She will never be the USA president , enoght is enoght of the Clintos.

Im just afraid to let Hill and her people take over our country's security. Of course, all of us Americans want our troops to be "safe", of course no one WANTS war; however, there's a time for war. I just get the feeling that Hill wants to appeal to the liberal hordes by saying "no more war", but not because she really believes that we should turn our face to evil i.e. terrorism.

“I am not surprised” she may have almost swallowed her own tongue shoving her foot down her throat that way! No such luck?

I too believe that the only thing that will save these crooks in the WHitehouse is another 9/11. Also feel that they may stage one just because.
Don't put a thing past them. They have proven to be untrustworthy.

Boy , she sure has some tough talk, what did she and her hubby Bill do doing the 90's when our embassy's were bombed, terrorist camps flurished, and before and after the first trade center bombing ?? NOTHING !! all her talk now about defending the country is pure PMS !!

I like Hill but Obama works,and so does Edwards,Biden Etc.They all have the brains to do better than the mental midgets we have now in the WH.As long as we have a candidate with the intellectual ability of these guys I'm happy.I don't see anybody like that on other side.

The reason you know who Hillary Rodham is = Bill Clinton.
The reason she's highest in national polls = name recognition.
The reason you know who Barack Obama is = Barack Obama.
The reason we elected George W. Bush = George H. W. Bush.

We need to break out of this ignorant idea that Hillary is the comfortable or safe choice. Bush wasn't safe!

Don't let another political spin machine run our country!
pleaase consider Obama.

Considering how cleverly contrived everything this Administration has done in using terror to control the American public and sway them away from focusing on other issues, I put nothing past them.

For all the stupid security crap that they've pushed [remember duct tape? and ever-changing airline rules on gels and sodas], (1) while it is tougher to get across the Canadian Border, they have allowed us to have a sieve at the Mexican Border (not that it's because wealthy Republican farmer-contributors need cheap, illegal Mexican help to boost profits–and donations); and (2) done everything to make sure that States and cities can do nothing to stop the problem. Bush won't even weigh in on the two convicted border patrol agents who killed an illegal immigrant involved in the drug trade!

So, if I am a terrorist who wants to harm the US, let me see–do I try the Canadian border where I might have to face tightened security so that I don't bring in cheap pharmaceuticals, or do I pose as an illegal immigrant and get an engraved invitation? And yes, if I blow something up, the GOP gains points. Everyone knows this and it's the only way the GOP will keep the WH–and Rove will do anything to keep it.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it(roughly.)The key point being the failure to learn,something we politely call "conservative."Modern times require higher thought processes that conservatives are unable to handle.That's why a progressive mind is better suited to deal with uncertainty.(Something that eluded the previous bloggers who criticized Hill for not speaking in a lower level language so that they would understand.)

She is right

In general, an attack on a country by an outside force is always good politically for the people currently in power. Multiply that by ten if the people in power are ultra-nationalists.

This is, by the way, one of many arguments against attacking Iran. Ahmadinejad is very unpopular there. If we hope that the more moderate voices in Iran get the chance to come to power soon then attacking Iran is exactly the wrong thing to do. Any US attack on Iran would cause the people there to rally around Ahmadinejad and he being the ultra-nationalist that he is would really know how to use the opportunity to his benefit.

One only has to remember Goering's quote about how to bring the people around to supporting a war to realize there is a parallel here:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I agree with her she say what others keep to them self YOU GO GIRL WE ARE WITH YOU.

DAN IN TX WRITES, "An attack on America helps no one. If you lean Democrat, it makes the Republicans look ineffective."

HUH???

since WHEN does the fact that the worst "terrorist" (read: false-flag) attack in u.s. history happened on the republicans' watch make the republicans look bad??

even if 9/11 was not an inside job (which it clearly was) the republicans ignored every warning, and gagged and fired every whistleblower (from sibel edmonds to able danger members) before and after 9/11, all the while promoting those who were demonstrably inept.

yet, despite their abhorrent actions, they have CONSISTENTLY claimed to be the party best at protecting us.

hillary clinton speaks the truth.

To those right-wingers that would leave the country if Hill is elected,can you commit to that please?Because if Hillary is so threatening to you,I'll make sure to put Hillarys in every political position just to make you go.There's a nice theocracy you people made in Iraq,why don't you move there.I'm sure your conservative ideology would make you quite comfortable there.Americans would rather fight your theocratic kind over there so we don't have to put up with you here.

Wow, that’s really a genius revelation, ain’t it? Way to be ahead of the pack and speak about an issue before it comes to a head, like in say… a major bridge collapse.
Maybe you’re talking about an overhaul of government, or an overhaul of your own reactionary campaign?
The more I think of Hillary Clinton, the more I think she’s the infrastructure in need of an overhaul.
Something she said last night at the AFL-CIO debate really made me weary of her, well more so than I was already.
She said, “If you need somebody to take on the right, I’m your girl.”
Great soundbite superleftgirl. The only thing is, YOU HAVEN’T BEEN TAKING ON THE RIGHT. You haven’t been speaking up in Congress, you’ve been safely hiding, you blindly voted for a right sponsored disaster of a war and have never apologized for your mistake, you stand by and say nothing as others call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney as they break law after law and craft bigger lie after lie to cover it.
While the American Constitution goes the way of a bald eagle in a bathtub full of DDT you say nothing.
Did I hear you speak up when Habius Corpus was reversed and when anyone’s rights where stripped away merely by the “accusation” of being a terrorist?
When Nancy Pelosi was arguing that point, or that wiretapping was illegal where you there beside her on C-SPAN?
The two “girls” in action?
Nope.
When it was revealed that Alberto Gonzalez had tried to coerce John Ashcroft into signing an illegal surviellence program on possibly his deathbed were you speaking out in outrage like John Webb or Harry Reid or even Joe Biden?
Were you even half as outspoken as Arlen Spector for cryin out loud, when he said that he’s lost all crediblity in our Attorney General? Or when he found out that an attorney in his own office authorized provisions of the Patriot Act that give the President absolute sole authority, totally bypassing your own Congress, to decide arbitrarily who should be a U.S. Attorney?
When it became known that the U.S. is outsourcing it’s interrogations of POWs and suspected terrorists to countries in the former Soviet Union, Syria and Cuba, were you there besides the dozens of other Senators that loudly proclaimed it’s unconstitutionality?
Where you beside President Jimmy Carter a few months ago when he called George W. Bush the worst President in history?
I think you were complaining somewhat about Bush, but it was not quite as loud, not quite as up front as Mr. Carter or the others, was it?
Did you personally try and block the vote that 14 of your fellow democrats signed last Friday that made Bush’s illegal spying on Americans over the last six years legal, even despite the total unconstitutionality of the law?
Nope.
Somehow, I doubt you’re our girl, Mrs. Clinton. I think you’d be okay, maybe not as bad.
Not bad ain’t enough. Shame on you for pandering to the audience and making yourself into a progressive.
YOU ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE, you are REACTIVE.
If any infrastructure needs a major overhaul, it’s that of the U.S. Government, starting with yourself.
Obama ‘08. At least the man still has his integrity. It hasn’t had time to be as corrupted as yours has been ma’am.
Thank God he’s running now, instead of waiting another 10 years to become as cautious as you have become.

She is absloutely correct. They have not only made world a horrible place to live in but also created countries of terrorist like Iraq and Afghan to make everyone live in fear.

Keep it coming Clintons'

-Stella Roy

Yes Van, the election will be about who we believe can make America safe. And no way is that Clinton…..

I'm an independnet voter, I plan to vote Democrat. Clinton is 3rd or 4th based on the available information on where candidates stand on the issues - only my view. I;m sure there are many passionate supporters for all candidates. Unfortuanate, among independents and Democrats, there are a lot of poeple passionate AGAINST Clinton.

How is someone liken too her own husband about to keep our country safe from attack? When the US are lead by real terrorists are under our noses and are located right here in the US running for political office.

There are 911 conspiracy theorist all over this nation that leads a trail all the way back too November 22, 1963. The Iraq conflicts, politics are intermingled. A product of pilfered economic gain and power struggles happening now and absolutely are not any responsibility of the American people as a whole.

Dick Cheney’s, Donald Rumsfeld’s, George Bush’s and let’s not exclude Condalisa Rice, it is all of their war and the terrorist of fear are a lingering myth in their own minds. As just listed in order is the responsibility of those people and their think tank alone along with previous administrations. It is not who holds the gold anymore that makes the rules, it is who holds the oil fields that will have the power and make the rules.
That is all them political people want and need to control the world economies, it is not about the protection of the American people, democracy and/or freedom.

People says such a thing meaning that that people is not a kind of confident people….and I thought, the Position of President of The United State would not fix to that people.

Hillary will make this nation more dangerous. It scares me that if she wins, she will be leading the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. She only thinks of herself, not of the American people. She does not seem to have a clear stance on any issue, other than she "deserves" to be President. I do not know who I support in this election yet, but I know who I will not vote for. I will not vote for someone who will only listen to their own over active ego.

Sounds like she was trying to prevent another hypocritical Repugs terror alert before they got a chance to use this, again. lol

Republicans, far-left kooks, and the mentally ill seem to dominate the board when it comes to anything Clinton.
If you think she's wrong, ask John Kerry what happened to HIM, in 2004.

If you're a democrat, and there must be at least 20-25% actual dems venting their collective spleens here, do you really believe that the general election campaign ISN'T going to be about who can best protect America? Do you really think that DHS WON'T toss out a terror plot, alert, warning, etc. in the weeks leading up to the election?

Do you really think that any of the other 2 leading candidates are tough enough and PREPARED enough to overcome the republican slime machine?

Van

Bravo to all the readers who see the reality for what it is. The Republicans are willing to have attacks upon our soil to sow seeds of fear.

Greg, the first poster, said it best: "…the worst terror strike in U.S. history occurred on the Republicans' watch…"

And doesn't anyone remember that this culpable administration had a memo warning of airplanes being used as bombs in the weeks prior to 9-11, and did nothing? They've used terror before, and they'll do it again.

Can someone tell me what this woman has done to deserve to be a Senator and now make a run for the Presidency? This is a person who has accomplished nothing except ride on the coattails of her husband. What a power trip she must be on. In this blog some have mentioned Hillary understands. Understands what? I think it is great she may get the Democratic nod then the Republicans can continue to call the Whitehouse home.

The Dem's Seem to be Self Destructing Hillary, Obama the Florida Primary Is Bush to blame or just too much drugs in the 60's and 70's?

It is very obvious most of you whiners never lifted a finger to serve this country nor do you take the time to study current events or history.

For old bag Clinton to state the Republicans made the world a more dangerous place is an indication that she and her two timing jerk husband accept no responsibility for the state they left world in. And how about that coward Carter? What a sissy! God Bless Reagan. We need another Ron in the House. In my opinion, we are in a bad state of affairs if these idiots, all of them, are what we have available to lead us.

Clinton's statement is very articulate and correct, so how can every get upset. This country is too sensitive and in the dark about a lots of issues.

Not now - not ever - will I vote for H Clinton. If she wins Bill's back in. She has no principles, as evidenced by her "stand by your man" philosophy when Bill was impeached. She stayed with Bill only to further her own quest for the White House. If she wins I will leave the USA.

" … no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." Hillary could have been talking about herself and Bill. How much have the eight Clinton years of greed, power, and personal distractions contributed to the current situation? I agree that the Republicans manipulate us with fear. But maybe they wouldn't have so much ammunition if the Clintons hadn't paved the way with their unethical behaviors and self-absorption.

Hillary will say or do anything to run this country. If she becomes president, I believe it will be the worst election mistake this country will have ever made.

Obama is the best chance we have.

Posted By David, Madison, WI

DAVID, YOU SAID "so… the head of the arkansas republican party says we need a new 9/11, stu bykosfsy, a known neo-con mouthpiece, says "we need another 9/11, to save america," and suddenly hillary is criticized for stating that republicans will surely benefit if another "terrorist" attack occurs."

so fight idiocy with idiocy? Come on. It was a ridiculous thing for her to say. An attack on America helps noone. If you lean Democrat, it makes the Republicans look ineffective. If you lean Republican it makes Democrats look scary, since Republicans think Republicans are stronger on defense - after all, using torture is no problem for them.

YOU SAID "hello?? so, suddenly speaking the truth is WRONG for the american people?? everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job, ..)"

Aside from the insanity of the second sentence… Clinton ATTACKED Obama for telling the truth to the American people about the need to talk to our enemies. I want a president who isn't afraid to get into someone's face and tell them what they think. She also criticized him on the "HYPOTHETCAL" of doing what any president would do, attack Bin Laden if he were in the NW province of Pakistan, even if Pakistan were unable to approve of the attack. I do think Pakistan would help so it is a moot point, but Obama having said what he said, makes it clear to everyone where he stands. Clinton also criticized him for taking nukes off the table - again how can she criticize that???

Her assertion is just plain wrong. An attack on the US doesn't help the Republicans, because they would have been impotent at stopping an attack. It does help the Republicans if you believe they are smarter and better at fighting terrorism. That means, if you are a democrat, it helps the democrats, if you are republican, it helps republicans. It's a wash. Clinton, in my opinion, is obviously wrong and this is just a foolish attempt to scare people into voting for her. That makes me angry.

These 9/11 believers better hope Pres. Charles Taylor of Liberia doesn't spill the beans on how he and his partner in the diamond mine business funneled money to terrorists.Then Pat Robertson's glee and praise of the attack will come into sharp focus.Those diamonds that paid for 9/11 likely came from the "gods warriors" in our own country.Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?

You guys are a bunch of mistaken fools! You probably think Elvis is still alive if you believe the majority of republicans would allow such an attack to keep in power.

Senator Clinton unfortunately is totally correct, she is stating exactly what the "republicans" want, especially Rudy….I mean, he was out the door before 9-11 and now he is so great. Keep in mind, Nixon had a secret plan to end the Vietnam war and not only kept the US there but escalated it into other countries….like Bush is trying to do now.

Hillary Clinton is right. Another terrorist attack would help the GOP. But why would she be better able to handle it? The world of terrorism is a recent phenomenon..and 9/11 was handled competently by the President. We're living in a new world, the war in Iraq is not like any other war in history..that's why it's so difficult. This high tech. hostile world is new. Nobody, but our current president has plenty of experience so far..He is doing the best he can, but I doubt anybody at this point could handle worldwide terrorism any better.

So much for her so called "experience" which looks more and more Bush-Lite.

We really do need a leader like Obama who brings tonnes of just plain common sense and good judgement.

Good for her. That is not Hilary's comments. Those are Bill's comments. Bill is running the show. When you are getting ready for a fight or a game, don't you have to read the defence. That is exactly what he is doing. Reading the defence.

Clinton made a stupid, misguided remark. However, judging by the posts here, if you like her (or just hate Republicans) it's okay. She's speaking the truth to power, or some other nonsense. The biggest problem with your country is people look at everything through a political prism. The poster alluding to the idiocy of Americans as the main problem is right on the money!

Do you not think Mrs. Clintons' statement is true? Do the Republicans not always use the fear card on the majority of Americans who don't know how to respond to the fear of terrior? And is their anyone out their that doesn't think they would use it to their advantage as they used 9/11 to get this country in a war which is killing our men & women, sucking the life from our economy and dividing us and yes as the Vietnam War did. If anyone looks into their heart of hearts and trust these right wing republicans God help us.

Again, Hillary is right in making that assumption. She can say that in a democratic society and get criticized. This is a healthy process and doesn't mean people should stop telling the truth. The arrogant, dumb, manipulative Bush/Cheney team got selected in the first place utilizing people's fear. It is amazing how American people forget so easily the dishonesty in every imaginable way demonstrated by the current Administration. They got re-elected capitalizing on people's fear also.

Just being on the stage and shouting out the truth doesn't help either. I don't think Huckabee and Ron Paul have that package to be elected President. When you want to lead a country, you have to have that appealing personality, where people will want to listen to your speech. They lack that magnetic personality. Bill Clinton is better, but Hillary also has that.

As for Edwards, he does have that kind of personality, but a man who spends $400 for one haircut and claims to have come from a poor background and capitalizes on that shows his version of hypocrisy. His strong stance on terrorism is also a suave version of terror tactics…..and Kucinich, he is passionate and speaks well, but again, does not seem presentable as a leader. Come on, we need a leader that will be taken seriously, after all that Bush the "Gladiator" has done for us!!!!!!!! Thanks to him, we are at more risk now. If we are to avoid getting involved in a war with the rest of the world, we need a strong person that will make the enemies think twice before striking.

I recall when the polls were at their lowest for both Bush and Blair a couple of years ago,suddenly Blair went on vacation in the Carribean ( which reminded me of Peter Sellers in the movie: The Party )and a terrorist attack transformed Heathrew Airport to the most untolerable airport in the world. It was announced that 12 British subjects of Pakistani origin were behind the attack , we never saw the face of any of them in the Media ( perhaps Shy ). But the Polls for both Bush & Blair immediately rose to their peak.

Clinton, O'Donnell, and others of your ilk…..when will you get it?

How cheap and dangerous her assertions are. She cares not about an attack on America and the consequential suffering of the American people. All she cares about is her own selfish political gain. It is truly sad that neither camp is offering a would-be commander in chief befitting this great nation. I like Biden just because of his low net worth possibly hinting that he is the cleanest of them all, but I am horrified as I dread the thought that this fake power hungry Hillary might become our next president. Never ever would this lady get my vote. Should senator Clinton become the democratic nominee, any Republican nominee would then get my vote as two votes against Hillary. God help us. God help America.

Terrorism is the biggest issue after the economic health of our nation. As she should, Mrs. Clinton is being candid and "real," a quality that so far has eluded the Republicans. Terrorists would like to see the Republicans in power the next time they strike. There's no worry for them when Republicans go after another country and let the terrorists who attacked us get away. Mrs. Clinton would go after them and they know it. She sees the true enemy, knows the true enemy and will respond to the true enemy. Her baby lives here and we all know what mothers will do when their babies are in danger!

This shows clearly that IT'S ALL ABOUT HILLARY. Not even a single thought about Americans being attacked. Her only concern is her political position.
IT IS DISGUSTING!!!! IT IS PETTY, AND IT IS HILLARY.

she speaks the truth!

so… the head of the arkansas republican party says we need a new 9/11, stu bykosfsy, a known neo-con mouthpiece, says "we need another 9/11, to save america," and suddenly hillary is criticized for stating that republicans will surely benefit if another "terrorist" attack occurs.

hello?? so, suddenly speaking the truth is WRONG for the american people?? everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job, and a three year-old could figure out that the neo-cons are salivating at the prospect of yet another "new pearl harbor" (see project for a new american century , 'rebuilding america's defenses…')

hillary clinton is enlightned and aware, and she speaks a truth that the american people need to hear. given that the republicans have demonstrably exploited the 9/11 terrorist attacks far beyond shame, how dare ANYONE criticize hillary for speaking the truth about this??

simply put, she speaks the truth that everyone already knows.

You guys seriously need to reconsider what u are saying… This isn't about simply : "Democrats vs.Republicans" here… like Clinton and the much of u put it.
Its about individuals, leadership, reality, and politics. For those of you that have yet to notice: yes it is quite true the GOP has indeed taken advantage of the terrorism status to gain political ground. HOWEVER, Clinton only establishes herself as the same tactician by such means… She knows herself, at this point the Democrats are BY FAR more trusted to handle "the war on terror," NOT republicans. She only says this out of political spite and irony - to take advantage of some of you fools that have yet to realize the meaninglessness in her words.. just like the War in Iraq propoganda.. Clinton is the same old package w/ nothing more than excuses and words

Focus your energy on peace and what you do want rather than fear and what you do not want. That is THE SECRET.

pl, at the UN, for a while… I have to ask, after reading your comment: "This candidate has traction already. she wasn't really talking to you, the American electors, she is already taking the helm and was talking to the world."- why does the world possible care about this statement? I also live overseas, and if anything, I think the world would see this for what it is: pretty petty campaigning.

I would agree with the comment from Greg, Houston that the last successful terrorist attack happened when a Republican was in the Whitehouse. The main point missing is the planning that went into the attack while a Democrat was in the Whitehouse. Politics as Ronald Reagan said “… is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first”. I and many others are tired of the Republican, Democrat Political agendas. For once I would like to see an American ( This statement is an individual comment and not inteneded to be viewed as that of the U.S. Military)

Paying for your freedom in Iraq

Note to Dems: the White House is yours to lose in 2008… and you're losing it

Heaven forbid a politician talking about politics

Since when do terrorist attacks help anyone?

Douglas wrote: "After reading a number of these "comments," I think - in the future - potential respondents should have to pass a pre-qualifying test before being allowed to post a comment. The to pass the test, one would have to exhibit basic reasoning skills or at least be able to spell "syllogism." The obvious failure of the American educational system far overshadows any need to comment on Hillary."

I would like to bring particular attention to the second sentance: "……pass a pre-qualifying test before being allowed to post a comment. The to pass the test, one would have to exhibit basic reasoning skills or at least be able to spell "syllogism."

"The to pass the test…." I think you did not want place the linking verb "The" in front of the preposition "To". Am I correct sir?

I do agree with you however. Read over what you write over and over an over….

You know, I'm reading alot about "scare tactics" concerning Republicans in this forum. I don't understand this concept. The U.S.S Cole event was pretty scary. 9/11 was pretty scary. What happened to Nick Berg was very scary. What happened at the U.N. building in Baghdad was scary - I was there. Should we be calling terrorist "non-terrorists" or something people?

At what frequency of attacks on our sovereignty will you acknowledge the threat? It sounds like an attack every 8 to 10 years is acceptable to you. Well, not for me. I've fought the threat once already, and I'm ready to continue the fight against these murderers.

If we did nothing after 9/11, do you think the terrorists would have just left us alone afterward? I honestly think you all fail to understand that the fanatical Muslims absolutely hate us, and believe we are evil. Don't think that excludes you because you disagree with the war or the way we run things with our capitalistic economy. They hate you and me because they want to, and because they are simply full of hate. Yes, it is that simple. They are just full of hate.

These people don't just attack us over in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are blowing up their own children too you fools. Do you really think people like that are capable of understanding anything more complex or civil than their barbaric mode of thought? Let's do what you all want. Nothing. Let's see if that protects your children over here. As for me, I have my rifle. I know how to use it. I take pleasure in killing the enemies of my country. "Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain…."

I love this country and our way of life. I'll die for you to preserve it. I've been to Iraq once, and I fly Apache Attack Helicopters now. For you, I'll go again. As someone who's decisions of our government directly affect everyday, very tangibly, maybe you should consider the way I and my fellow servicemen and women view the current situation in the desert and domestically. We believe in this fight. We want to win it. We're not LIBERAL. We are SCARED everyday we're over there. If we won't do it, who will? You? We already know the answer to that. And, if you are such a coward, I don't want you over there anyway. Stay at home and continue contributing to these forums from the comfort of your living room. I'm at and undisclosed location. I Miss my wife and children. Get my drift?

I'm glad that a presidential candidate is actually being honest. Besides, it is completely true. However, when she said what she believes without sugar-coating it, look what she got for it. People complain about politicians being dishonest, but how can they NOT be when people attack them like this? Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd were really cowardly on this.

Bill Richardson embarrassed himself - terrorism is as much about security as domestic political issues - we should avoid the urge to react politically to terrorism; except in as much as the handling of such incidents should be taken seriously. I am not a Hillary supporter however to pretend as though terrorism has no effect on domestic politics is to deceive the people or ones self,

Why are all the (Con-them-all)Republicans so mad,maybe because she has shown the only Ace they were holding

Sounds like Clinton affirms the conservative approach to fighting terrorism here, deep down inside. I personally think we should be much, much more aggressive in our fight, and that Republicans have messed this war up. However, I still think they are doing a better job than any liberal can do.

Mrs. Clinton is right: it WOULD help the Republicans. Hence it would not surprise me if such an attack took place shortly before the elections. A CIA-op like 9/11, a few hapless Arabs taking the fall, and the conservative press pointing out the need for a 'strong leader'. It would be "V for Vendetta" all over again, except real blood would be spilled for political gain. Of course, in America that wouldn't be the first time and wouldn't be the last time either…..

This is all just more politics and a bunch of crap. The democrats are just as guilty as the republicans as far as fear tactics and dividing this country go. I'm also very afraid of the impact Clinton will have on the economy if she is elected. The democrats also have Al Gore who is using "Global Warming" to his advantage both politically and economically. I'm sure the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw the behavior of the democrats and republicans.

She was right. It would feed into the fear of the people. And the public will run to the feet of Republican candidates and say they were right, and hand their freedom and liberties over to the biggest fear-monger. She shouldn't have to take back comments she said. I don't like Hillary for a president. But she simply told the TRUTH!

She scares me. But, unfortunately most of the Candidates scare me. All I've heard so far is attempts to discredit the other party. Nothing concrete, no real plans. Nothing.

It's going to be a dreary November at this rate.

WHAT IF THE REPUBLICANS WOULD LET SOMETHING HAPPEN "ACCIDENTALLY OF COURSE"? THEN BUSH DECLARES MARTIAL LAW.
YOU THINK GUILLIANI WOULD STEP IN TO OPPOSE HIM?
YOU THINK GINGRICH OR ANY OF THE REPUBLICANS WOULD OPPOSE HIM?
OR DO YOU THINK THE GOOF BARRACK OBAMA WHO IS THE MEIDA'S PRIVATE LITTLE HELPER WILL BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING- A LITTLE GOOFBALL WHO DOES NOT EVEN BELONG THERE!!
BUT HILLARY COULD STOP THEM!!! SHE IS THE WIFE OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT AND SHE WOULD HAVE THE CLOUT TO INTERFERE AND A REAL ARMY OF OPPOSITION COULD BE MUSTERED AGAINST ANY POSSIBLE USURPERS!!!! SHE IS RIGHT!!! SHE IS OUR ONLY REAL GUARANTEE AGAINST POSSIBLE TREACHERY!!! PAY ATTENITION AMERICANS!!! SHE MAY BE OUR LAST CHANCE AT DEMOCRACY!!!
THIS IS REALLY WHAT SHE'S SAYING BETWEEN THE LINES!!! PAY ATTENTION FOR HER TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS SHE MAY HAVE REASON!!!!!

Hiliary just using that in a way to scare the left side into thinking that such a thing could mean another Repulican pres no matter who he is. Hi'liar'y is very deceptive and cunning. The republicans havent done much here lately but pull away from the president in order to gain political acceptance from the 'mid-liners'who are often mis informed overall from a constant assualt of a biased media.
and god forbid there be another attack on this country at all, but in the unfortunate chance that it does, lets hope its before while we still have the people in office who are well trained to deal with such an inncident. I havent. heard the democratic platform where it pertains to what action they are ready to take in such an event. So her claiming that she is the bestchoice in a situation out of her control, I remember you voted one way once and then changed your mind to meet your political parties current mislead point of view. That alone tells me you have no Idea how u would handle such a crisis, that would most likely not be as grand as the 9/11 attack. We do now know however, just what the first few thoughts would be going through hiliarys head, "o my god this might give em an edge".
If it should happen while Bush is still in power, then allah help those poor terrorist, becuase once again their would be no quarter nor rest for the wicked. And with overwelming conservative support another Muslim or Islamic dictator will be brought down and his terrorist organization will be routed out from whatever country they hide in. See hiliary, the right side already knows what we will do to bring an out of control situation back under control. Ill sleep well till the day come, god forbid, that hiliary or any other democrat take office.

Weak minded liberal trash - "There are circumstances beyond our control, and I think I am better able to handle things I have no control over," She couldn't even control her husband let alone her mouth. Truly beyond words or and sense of logic.

Of course she is right!Because she might know who REALLY did 9-11.

The only people who are delusional in this world about who did it live in US and A.

Dubya's buddy, Osama, will show up on TV just in the right time. As allways.

"Senator Hillary Clinton is correct. Republicans will try and ride the "TERROR CARD" in in an effort to get Republicans elected in the upcoming elections. In my opinion, Americans better wake up and realize, the United States, is in the biggest MESS ever. The biggest threat to Americans and the future of the United States, is the present Bush administration. Being overly involved overseas and not taking care of the United States, and the American worker, is simply DUMB."

Mr. R. D. Moore
Kimpo City, Republic of Korea

Hillary Clinton does not care about America she cares about herself. Just review her voting record when it come to seniors.

I am sick to death of all the political entities using the terrorism situation to their political benefit. It marginalizes the senseless deaths of so many. Why don't you just invite them to attack us and then use it to make a political point.

Cheryl Irwin, Tri cities,

Boy is this gonna be fun! Correcting idiot republicans must be my full-time job!

"The Clinton administration started the problems"

Umm …exactly HOW ignorant of history are you?

Our meddling in the middle east started WAY before Clinton kid!

Google "Operation Ajax" sometime. Hint: It occurred in the 1950s.

Google WHY the American hostages were taken in Iran in the late 70's. Hint: Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, a former hostage taker, said the move [taking of American hostages] “was just a reaction against the US intervention in our country”.

Remember when Ronnie ("ketchup is a vegetable") Reagan had his CIA help TRAIN Al Queada cuz he considered them "freedom fighters"?

Remember when he had Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? The same Saddam who Ronnie supported politically AND militarily - even though Ronnie knew we were sending him weapons he was killing not only Iranians, but his OWN people with?

LOL! So much for the "it all started with Clinton" argument. That makes you 0-1.

"How does someone stop an attack they did not provoke or know about."

Dubya didn't know about the ability to use airplanes as missiles? Why, because Contradicta Rice SAID SO?

1) The Pentagon commissioned a study in 1993 called "Terrorism 2000″, which predicted multiple simultaneous attacks, the use of airplanes as weapons, targeting of large landmarks and financial centers, etc.

2) A FedEx employee had already tried to crash a DC-10 into FedEx HQ in Memphis in 1994, but was apprehended before he could do so.

3) The Library of Congress Report on The Sociology And Psychology Of Terrorism warned in 1999 about suicide hijackers.

4) The Pentagon conducted a drill in December 2000 to respond to an airline crashing into the Pentagon.

5) There was enough of a threat that, months before 9/11, Ashcroft himself began "traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft (the $40 million GulfStream 5)instead of commercial airlines" - at a taxpayers cost of $1600 an hour – because of an FBI threat assessment.

You're now 0-2!

"I believe that the Clinton Administration knew something of a possible attack but failed to share important factual statistics for fear of not wanting to look bad."

Clinton warned Dubya in a meeting before he left office that "Al Queada will be your #1 threat during your administration.", after which Dubya 1) gave 43 million to the Taliban (the guys who harbored Al Queada) and then 2) went on VACATION.

Because he was more concerned with Iraq and overthrowing Saddam at the time.

Still with me Cheryl? Cuz you're now 0-3!

"Think about it!"

Yep … you definitely should!

How dare she speak the truth? She's a presidential candidate, after all!

Good for Sen. Clinton, I am sure that many of us who talk about politcs have made a statement that resembles what Hillary said. Everytime anyone in the public eye says anything that is not scripted and has a chance to be real they are hammered for it. I want more real talk and less planned talk.

As usual, Hillary exemplifies her inappropriate and delusional train of thought with yet another crass comment. In fact, isn’t she lowering herself to the same standards and actions of political gain that she accuses others of? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Bob, Silver Spring, MD,

"planning for 9/11 occurred under her husband's watch"

Wait… so now Clinton is responsible for other people's THOUGHT PROCESSES now? Was he supposed to intuitively know what they were thinking (attack details, etc) via some kind of psychic espionage?

Do elaborate further wont you?

That would be as idiotic as Dems blaming the disaster from Katrina solely on Dubya cuz he "created the hurricane with his hurricane machine"!

I guess we can we blame Bush Sr for the FIRST NYC attack then? I'm all for it! Hell, lets ALWAYS blame the prior administration!

Well maybe if Mexicans from Mexico attack us the Repukes mighty look good.
That wall not being built and all. But if we have to fence ourselves in from our neighbors we are doing something wrong and we should look into that and make thing right with our neighbors.

I can't stand Clinton. But it's an American disgrace when you are criticized for telling the truth. Is the the biggest story the press can find? Grow up. Find something meaningful.

i think clinton should stop while she is ahead. i would never vote for her. if she was in office when sept 11th happend she would have just hid under her desk sucking her thumb. she is a huge loser and alway's will be. i am proud to be a REPUBLICAN! 100%

Posted By A kingsland ga : August 25, 2007 4:27 pm

Instead of sitting in a kindergarten classroom hoping to find out what in the world happened to Fluffy the Wabbit!!! Oh golly gee!!!

As much as I dislike Clinton, she is correct… and the Republicans know it! (As do the Democrats… they're one and the same at their core.)

Another terrorist attack could be allowed to happen (just as were 9/11 and Pearl Harbor) which would throw the population back into a state of panic and shock. A citizenry full of fear would then allow those with an imperialistic agenda the opportunity to again manipulate the people's emotions toward more war abroad and loss of personal rights at home.

This would be more obvious if the "watchdog" media were doing it's job and shining a light on these schemes. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is now consolidated and owned by those who also profit from more war, among other legislative favors to their corporate interests.

The question is, will The People ever finally recognize that we're all being PUNKED to benefit an elite few (at a great cost to the many)… or will we just assume the fetal position and allow the REAL terrorists to strip us of our remaining riAs much as I dislike Clinton, she is correct… and the Republicans know it! (As do the Democrats… they're one and the same at their core.)

Another terrorist attack could be allowed to happen (just as were 9/11 and Pearl Harbor) which would throw the population back into a state of panic and shock. A citizenry full of fear would then allow those with an imperialistic agenda the opportunity to again manipulate the people's emotions toward more war abroad and loss of personal rights at home.

This would be more obvious if the "watchdog" media were doing it's job and shining a light on these schemes. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is now consolidated and owned by those who also profit from more war, among other legislative favors to their corporate interests.

The question is, will The People ever finally recognize that we're all being PUNKED to benefit an elite few (at a great cost to the many)… or will we just assume the fetal position and allow the REAL terrorists to strip us of our remaining rights and protections that our country was founded on?ghts and protections that our country was founded on?

Senator Clinton stuck her foot in her mouth here. She's right to say that Republicans will exploit a terrorist attack for political gain, but to cast the possibility of a terrorist attack in political terms just makes her look like the power hungry political opportunist many people accuse her of being. No way in the world Hillary can win a general election. Go O8ama!

Bill Clinton can take his share of responsibility for the predicament that we (the U.S.) find ourselves in today. He made many poor choices in respect to terrorist attacks on the US or US interests. The "Big One" just happened to occur on Bush's watch…..but Clinton helped set the stage. Hillary ***doesn't*** have the experience to deal with terrorism. It's scary that she's trying to convince people that she would be the better person to handle another attack.

We've already seen the Clinton's effort, or the lack thereof, against terrorism. In the 8 years they spent in the White House, we saw our Embassies, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc all get attacked with little to no response from the Clinton's. Their spineless efforts cannot be allowed to happen again!

she spoke the truth. neo-con pundits said it just last week and the pnac group said it before 911. they deal in fear and the nation is a bunch of sheep that will follow whoever scares them the most. our soldiers are brave!! the american public is not.

She speaks the truth.

[...] Clinton faces criticism for terror remarks [image] Clinton said a terror attack would help the GOP. CONCORD, N.H. (AP) – Democratic rivals criticized […] [...]

I've listened to this Hillary Clinton and

1. this woman is only interested in her personal interest of becoming the first female president of this nation. I believe she has had this ambition for a while.
2. She doesn't say where she stands on issues. She is too vague in her answers and playing conventional politics but she will however waste no time to discredit those that have a viable opinion and fearlesly express it.
2. She tells democratic candidates that they should channel their energy towards the republicans (because the polls say she's leading - we'll see)but she attacks Obama who she thinks is a threat to her ambition. Talk about double talk.

3. She attacks Obama and says she doesn't engage in hypotheticals - this woman is slimmy and not sincere, but she's now engaging in the same hypotheticals.

4. SPECIFICALLY what experience does this woman say she has??? VAGUENESS.

5. The media (especially CNN) is in her pockets - This is a shame.

6. She says that collecting money from lobyists will not influence her - WHAT A LIE. He that pays the piper dictates the tune.

7. On voting for the Iraq war (a war based on greed and has caused many mother and fathers without their sons and daughters), she did not apologize but says "If I knew what I knew now, I would not have voted for the war". This is very laughable and ridiculous.

Well, you know what, if we all knew what will happen in the future, there will be no mistakes (depends on what you regard as a mistake though)

8. In the Labour debate, presided by Keith Olbermann, she tries to take CHEAP advantage of what Obama said "…you can think big, but you don't have to always say what you think…"

Hillary you are running for the presidency of U. S. A. and the people of this nation deserve to know what you think!!!

This woman is NOT CREDIBLE AND DOES NOT REPRESENT THE GOOD INTEREST OF THIS NATION.

The credible candidates in my opinion are (the order does not mean anything here - though my preferences are Obama or Edwards for dems and Huckabee or Ron Paul for reps)

Obama - Sound judgement, Intelligent, Pragmatic and addresses real issues NOT FELLOW CANDIDATES.

Edwards - This guy will fight for what concerns the people. He has a passion for it.

Kucinich - You can see his passion for peace, will not pander to the greedy rich and credible in my opinion.

Huckabee - This guy can be a president of the U. S. A. and should be given more air time.

Ron Paul - This guy should also be given more air time.

Candidates I consider a joke:

Hillary Clinton, Rudy Gulliani, Mitt (the flip flop) Romney and Mccain.

What she said is the damn truth! Anyone who thinks it isn't needs to remember how much the freakin' republicans have manipulated and employed fear tactics to get people to act like zombies!

I feel the reason the Democrats lost the election because they were for E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G that the republicans were aganist.Even the new adult generation did not approve.It showed in the poles.

So what was so outrageous about what Hillary Clinton said? It's already happened. Can anyone doubt that the Republicans are shameless hearse-chasers when disaster strikes? Dubya used the 9/11 terror attacks as an golden excuse to invade Iraq, something he'd been dreaming of long before he ever took office. And Rudy Giuliani can date his presidential candidacy from the moment "he stood brave and strong" after 9/11 (to be sure, that didn't take much courage. It required less bravery than if he'd been mayor of Honolulu the day after Pearl Harbor, when everyone expected the Japanese to follow up the sneak attack with an actual invasion!) Chicken hawks, both of them.

I am never surprised at anything that Clinton woman will say. In my estimation, somewhat more low class than Cindy Sheehan, the Texas ditch witch.

It's telling that political expediency seems to be Clinton's knee-jerk reaction to a terrorist attack. I think this is one of those moments where her true personality came through. It's sad that even a terrorist attack would be seen through the lens of how it would affect her electibility in '08, instead of thinking about lives lost and the tragedy that such an attack would present.

Maybe Democrats should consider why Americans seem to trust the GOP to keep the U.S. safe, why that perception is out there. Maybe it's because Democrats will do whatever it takes to see Bush fail, even if it means seeing that terrorists succeed.

By suggesting that an attack would help the GOP, Mrs Clinton has done more for our security than she has since she cast her vote in the Senate for bringing down Saddam Hussein. Because our terrorist enemy knows that the Democrats are the party of surrender and defeat, Mrs Clinton's comment was a signal to them to lay low for just a bit longer so that she and they may achieve what they want. As I accurately predicted in 2004, I shall predict again for 2007-08: there will be no significant terrorist incident on US territory before the general election. The terrorists will not be served by reminding the American voter that we are at war: better for them that we forget.

I believe Mrs Clinton when she says that among Democrats she is the best able to handle things over which she has no control, but it should by now be clear to all, Republican or Democrat, that those "things" of which she speaks are limited to the revelation of the myriad skeletons in her closet, of which she alone is encyclopedically aware but only the eruptions of which have historically been beyond her control.

Regrettably, the Democrats will again impale themselves on such a candidate. It is rather sad that no other candidate can arise to defeat one with such astronomically high negatives. She will crush the dwarves assailed against her for the nomination, but she will never overcome whoever will oppose her in the general election, whose supporters will only start with the half of the electorate that already swears on holy relics that she will never be president.

I would be more interested in those fires all over greece right now….
and then hillary makes a 'terrorist' comment………

I have a pretty idea of who she made that comment for, and I emailed him too, so they know both KNOW what I think the reason hillary made that terrorist comment, but NOTE HOW hillary made it, when she said if "certain" things happen…….
and I have a pretty good idea of what those "certain" things are that they don't want to happen are……..
After all, I did NOTE time of day this article of hillary's words posted on CNN't ticker.
I love the word she uses now in her explantion, the "unexpected".
ok, like I believe that one!
yeah, I think she only thinks she wants Americans to think "unexpected" and now she wants us to also think she's the best one for the position of President of the United States, and Commmander in Chief of our U.S. Military, ok, depends on which side of the bed she gets up on which day obviously.
I think when she says she is the best one to handle things she had 'no' control over, what she really is saying is she thinks she is the best one to handle what she (only thinks) she does have control over, I don't think she will ever admit that, but thats sure what I think.

It is so funny how all of us took the bait so easily. Wake up people. These are politicians trying to make a statement to win elections. It has nothing to do with who is best for the country. Right and left, please spare us all the antics of jumping when the other party says something and that the other party is evil. Wake up and support America. America's interest is never on the left or right, it will always be in the middle with sensible people who don't blindly follow a party. They read, they research, they don't repeat radio talk shows like parrots. They are Americans at hear

An American (not a republican nor a democrat)

HRC is the only Dem that seems to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against the Republican hate machine and state the FACTS. The Republicans have been running on a fear and terror platform since peace and prosperity went in the toilet when Bush the dumber weasled his way in to office. I haven't seen any of the panty waist spineless dems take a stronger stand against what has been destroying America for the last 6 years and that would be the GOP.

With her comments, Sen Clinton has safeguarded the US from a terrorist attack prior to the election. I mean, if one was a terrorist who better to be president than the wife who let the terrorists have free reign throughout the world? I am sure they would love to have Hillary in the White House.

Sen. Clinton was perfectly correct to note that Republicans would certainly exploit any terrorist attacks in America for their own partisan interests. Some Republicans have already commented that what America needs to bring us together is another 9/11. Guiliani is running SOLELY on his silly claim that he's the best candidate to fight the inaccurately named "war on terror." No, unquestionably Republicans would repeat their past disgraceful attempts to gain political advantage by manipulating our fears should such a horrible event occur. Given that Bush still holds the presidency, and the country is at war, they may succeed. As for Sen. Clinton's claim that she would be the best person to deal with both the actual and political effects of such an attack, why would she be running for president if she didn't believe this?
With respect to her supposed hypocrisy in addressing a hypothetical, this wasn't a question about exactly how she would react diplomatically or militarily to a terrorist attack, but whether she thought Republicans would take political advantage of such an attack. Duh!!! Yes!!! By this logic, Sen. Clinton also couldn't assess whether passing expanded health coverage would benefit Democrats or Republicans, or analyze if Bush was trying to capitalize on the caricature of Democrats as "tax and spenders" when he opposed raising gasoline taxes to fix bridges. As long as her words don't foreclose her options as president, they're not inappropriate and certainly not a "flip-flop."
Finally, I think we can safely assume that Al Quaeda is trying to attack America and Americans all the time, regardless of what Hillary Clinton or anybody else is saying. Absent overt encouragement, of the "Bring it on" variety, debating ALL the risks of terrorism is just fine.

I find it interesting that she uses people's fear as a weapon in her arsenal. The way she has portrayed herself over the last few months makes her sound like a sniviling snake in the grass. Not to mention her political agenda mimics a mid 20th century communist.

I think she is 100% correct in her assumption. Even I voted for idiot-Bush last time, because I thought the international community would not take Kerry seriously-and we would be virtually "sitting ducks."

Hillary Clinton is right. That is exactly what had happened in 2004 election. American people got scared with a lousy statement issued by Bin Laden and voted for Bush the brainless.

The bottom line is that there is NO BALANCE between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branch within this country! Stop being FOOLED by these lame comments by candidate who are more interest in party postering than in serving the people of this Nation and by Defending the US Constitution.

OR Download Grasso For President FAQ at (PDF Format) at: http://www.grasso4president.com/Domains/grasso/Documents/GrassoForPresidentFAQ.pdf

Of course Neo-cons are going to use fear as a way of preserving power. I admire them for their courage to keep us safe from liberal documents like the constitution. I am just saying the guys that wrote that document wore wigs, how can they be man enough to protect us?