Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The threat of a threat (Hillary Clinton's comment about another terrorist attack)
The Guardian ^ | August 29, 2007 | Naomi Wolf

Posted on 08/29/2007 2:20:19 PM PDT by neverdem

Hillary Clinton is right to warn that a new terrorist attack on the US would help Republicans. Fear and trumped-up threats can be used to gain power.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is getting a pounding, from liberal blogs and her Democratic rivals for the presidency, because she had the temerity to warn voters that a possible terrorist attack before the election might strengthen the Republicans' hand. Chris Dodd called the comment "tasteless" and liberal bloggers are savaging her for, in their view, caving to the Republican framing of the terror issue.

These critics are being extraordinarily historically naive. If all Clinton meant was that a genuine terror attack would empower Republicans, then under the current social consensus, her comment is in poor taste. (Though this notion, that examining the possible domestic fallout of terror attacks is vulgar or unpatriotic, is one of those quasi-Victorian conventions that does not serve the vigorous debate needed in a time of crisis). But if Clinton is also trying to warn voters about something even more difficult for us to talk about, then she is absolutely right, even brave, and her critics are frighteningly ill-informed about the past.

Clinton is right to caution voters to consider the domestic outcome of a possible terror-related event before the election if you factor into her caution this forbidden subtext: if the terror scare in question is exaggerated, or even manufactured, to serve a domestic political purpose.

Even as I write those words, I understand I am breaching a major social taboo. There is a general polite consensus right now that maintains two no-debate areas. Firstly, you are not, if you are a...

--snip--

While General Eisenhower did not participate in senator Joe McCarthy's red-baiting directly leading up to the 1952 election, he did not repudiate the tactics.

(Excerpt) Read more at commentisfree.guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: clinton; democrat; dncvalues; hillary; hillaryclinton; jihadinamerica; naomiwolf; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Venona, Hiss, the Pumpkin Papers, and More

IIRC, a poll said more than 30 percent of folks believe that the administration either was aware of the impending attack on September 11, 2001, or that they caused it. Another attack on our soil will probably generate a similar result.

1 posted on 08/29/2007 2:20:21 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: neverdem

IMO, Hitlery is a Liberal terrorist threat.


3 posted on 08/29/2007 2:23:46 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arbooz

I think she was telling the Arabs to NOT do another attack till after the election if they wanted a friend in office.

Meadow Muffin


4 posted on 08/29/2007 2:24:13 PM PDT by rwgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Hillary Clinton is right to warn that a new terrorist attack on the US would help Republicans.”

That’s a no-brainer, with the Democrats all but rolling out the red carpet for terrorists while they hide under their beds and chant ‘make it go away’. A dose of reality would really hurt.


5 posted on 08/29/2007 2:27:20 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This little scare mongering tart can churn out a manufactured pant load with the best of fantasy writers.

We should fear American politics because they might scare us and have scared us but only Mrs billy Clinton has had the courage to speak to such matters.

We avert our eyes to the criminality of the Republican administration because she has it as fact it has been done and is being done—just ask any of her communist sources and their squelchers of freedom under the justification that Bush is such a mass manipulator.

Is it true Karl Rove is now working for Mrs Bill Clinton? Be very afraid.

Cuff her and stuff her.


6 posted on 08/29/2007 2:40:42 PM PDT by petertare (--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Any set of circumstances that ends up in Herself, the Cold and Joyless, getting hammered by a significant part of her base, may only be termed most fortuitous for the rest of the world. That alone may not be enough to deny Herself the coronation as candidate she so desperately wants, but it certainly supplies ammunition that may be used in the general election.

There is a certain body of opinion out there, that sincerely believes, without a scintilla of proof, that the Bush Administration actively encouraged, aided and abetted the destruction from the events of September 11, 2001. Once this mindset is established, it is only a small leap to believe that another such catastrophe of similar proportions may already be in the later stages of planning and execution is imminent. And that the Bush Administration is also involved somehow in this new event.

Sorry for the conspiracy theory nutroots out there, but that same logic can be applied just as convincingly to whatever it is that Herself is doing. In a convoluted, double-double cross, reverse psychology sort of projected motives, that would work in a perverse way to then HELP Herself.


7 posted on 08/29/2007 2:44:03 PM PDT by alloysteel (Never attribute to ignorance that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok
“Hillary Clinton is right to warn that a new terrorist attack on the US would help Republicans.”

Any journalist worth his weight would ask the question “Why is that?” Perhaps it is because the demoncraps have been a roadblock to the war on terror. They have given comfort and aid to the terrorist. They have made it more and more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence agencies interdict terrorist. they have caused many American deaths by encouraging the terrorist. And the blood of those killed in the next terrorist attack will also be on the demoncraps hands. The dems can use their buddies in the lamestream media to cover for them, but the vast majority of Americans know they can not trust dems with the nations security. And any future attack will only serve to prove that. We have not had a successful attack in the US since 9/11, in spite all the dems have done to allow one to happen. If we get hit hard and it turns out that had any of the programs the dems put a stop to could have prevented it, they better hide cause I think there might be a lynching.

8 posted on 08/29/2007 2:45:34 PM PDT by MPJackal ("From my cold dead hands.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1887879/posts

The video of Jackie Mason commenting on this is an absolute hoot and right on the money.


9 posted on 08/29/2007 2:48:06 PM PDT by vietvet67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MPJackal

What scares me is that no matter how much harm the Democrats do to our country, the MSM will be there to conceal, confuse and distort the truth. If A Dem is our next president, every failing in the economy, in national security and the environment will be blamed on Bush (take your pick), Reagan, Nixon or Eisenhower. With every defeat of a Dem, the MSM moves further and further to the left and away from reality.


10 posted on 08/29/2007 2:58:19 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Thanks for the link.


11 posted on 08/29/2007 3:08:37 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You mean, of course, 9/11 happened because of the Clinton administration. They sure could use force against their own citizens; but when it came to foriegn countries; let’s be friends as long as the money keeps pouring in.


12 posted on 08/29/2007 3:09:35 PM PDT by freekitty (May the eagles long fly over our beautiful and free American sky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Personally, you can call me crazy if you want to, but I always had a suspicion that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved in the plot of 911, either directly or indirectly. I find it interesting that Hillary seemed so desperate when she mentioned that a terrorist attack would help the Republicans. It seems to me that it is almost as if that desperate plea was an admission of her own involvement. She was pleading with her buddies to not strike. It seems that the Democratic leadership sends messages to their buddies via the media by the statements they make. It wouldn't surprise me that some of the Democrats do this, since they are so convinced that they are so smart and everyone else is so stupid, it's as if they think they can do this and not be noticed. Well I notice, they aren't as smart as they think they are. Granted; however, I will admit that their supporters ARE THAT STUPID, no wonder why the Democratic leaders all think they are so smart, and that's a good reason why they hate Republicans, because we get it and we see it, and it's too bad. Now, if we could just get someone nominated who was not afraid to show these idiots up for who they really are, that would be nice!
13 posted on 08/29/2007 3:17:12 PM PDT by rodeo-mamma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Maybe I’m just too simple for the sophisticated minds like Naomi Wolfe et al. I do find it quite tasteless to publicly worry about who gains politically from the next terrorist attack. Simple people like me think that it does nothing but highlight the real priorities of its author. But then, I just don’t understand all those really complex issues that politicians discuss.
14 posted on 08/29/2007 3:38:05 PM PDT by Renkluaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petertare
many miracles happened when ‘she’ was president last time . Evertime someone got too close to them two, they miraculously died. Some performed task impossible for the rest of us, like shooting themselves in the back of head TWICE ! With the line of body-bags it was very dangerous to be in her group, a bad omen maybe?

Also too bad kennedys plane crashed, he may have got in her way in 2008 . Of course just more conspiracy BS .

15 posted on 08/29/2007 3:59:38 PM PDT by noamnasty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I have a different view entirely, in my opinion what you said is actually true of Hillary. She was acting very strange the day of the attacks, like she already knew. I find these people fascinating, they always manage to accuse innocents of what they are actually guilty of, and their stupid supporters of course buy it hook line and sinker. It sucks that these people get to call themselves United States Citizens, because in spirit, they are traitors, every last one of them.


16 posted on 08/29/2007 4:01:03 PM PDT by rodeo-mamma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rodeo-mamma

her comment is in poor taste.

As is the rest of her! Take out the trash, America!

We need a bumper sticker with hillary’s face on it and the circle with a slash through it and underneath it says
“JUST SAY NO TO ANOTHER CLINTON PRESIDENCY”


17 posted on 08/29/2007 4:04:27 PM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rwgal

I’m so glad to read that I’m not the only one who took what Hillary said the same way as you did, that is the exact feeling I got to when she was talking, she seemed so desperate in her plea, it was if she was begging them, “Please don’t do it before I get elected, it will screw everything up, then the Republicans will get elected and I won’t get to enact the executive order that I wrote during my husband’s term in office, I was planning to divide the country into 10 sections and declare a national emergency and confiscate people’s property and relocate people, all in the name of national security!!!!!


18 posted on 08/29/2007 4:05:15 PM PDT by rodeo-mamma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
she had the temerity to warn voters that a possible terrorist attack before the election might strengthen the Republicans' hand.

Hey Fidel, Do me a favor and STFU! Also, if it isn't too much trouble, use whatever influence you have with everyone else around the world, that longs to see the USA weakened, to STFU too.

You're all making this more difficult when I have to act like I actually give a shit about... Well you know.

Thanks in advance,
Hill & Bill

19 posted on 08/29/2007 4:27:16 PM PDT by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwgal

Bingo!


20 posted on 08/29/2007 4:51:54 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson