Redstate

How else do you portray someone who sees everything through political lenses. It's disgusting that she would infer that an attack that would kill Americans would be beneficial to a political rival. On second thought, she is a Clinton, so I guess it's just par for the course.

If her hubbies track record is any gauge, I say take a pass. If the hound dog had acted when given the chance, the whole 9/11 may have never happened.

Oh and how about those FBI files, still have them?

Well if anything, this quote shows that even Hillary knows that the American people don't trust Democrats with national security. How else could she come to the conclusion that should some attack occur that it would help Republicans, if not for that simple understanding.

Why would Republicans benefit from an attack? Is it because the entire world knows Republicans are far better equipped to handle terrorist attacks? How nice of Shrillary to admit it!

So you are agreeing that the Republicans would benefit from an attack, even now under a Republican administration?

is that conservative commentators and administration officals are comfortable talking publicly about unspecified threats that are likely to happen in the near future.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21514

The republicans focus on the Who and the Where, the dems focus on the What and the Why, and the media focus on the When and the How [to pin it on Bush.]

One thing is certain: if it's going to happen, it's better for the country if it happens while a republican is in the white house. Obviously she knows that, too.

--
Marc Bublitz

you should pay attention. That it will benefit Republicans is historically accurate. Even a lot of Democrats admitted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that they felt safer with W at the helm than they would have with Gore. And Guiliani did a Churchillian job as the Republican mayor of NYC. If there is a successful attack (or even a botched one that was interrupted just in time) the focus will shift to who is better able to fight the bad guys. And since Truman, it ain't been a Dem.

Would I trumpet that in a Republican campaign? Probably not, but only because it might look like we were hoping for such an attack.

It really makes me angry when I hear about hypotheses that "shouldn't be considered". Hillary apparently said that if there's a terror attack, Republicans are likely to benefit much more. That does NOT mean that she thinks Republicans would be HAPPY with a terror attack (except for that one guy, what's his name, that wrote the column in Philadelphia?). And maybe she does think so, but that's certainly not what she said, and she's a smart politician and knows not to say things like that even if she thinks them. But she is trying to convey the message that a terror attack would help Republicans win elections.

I tend to agree with that: suppose that there is another attack in the US and that some other famous landmark, along with many lives, is destroyed. Follow my chain of thought for a moment: people will become grief-stricken. People will rally around whatever pillar of strength they can rally around, and that will probably be the President, since that's his job. And the President's Republican, so the grief-stricken, now irrational people will do whatever the Republican President says, support the Republican President's decisions, and vote for the Republican President's chosen candidates. A politician critical of the Republican President, a Democratic Senator, will speak out against the ideas of the Republican President, but in a time of such grief, we'd need to be united, and therefore the Democratic Senator would be called a traitor by the media and possibly his colleagues and that would be the end of that for another few years. Replace Republican with Democratic and vice-versa and nothing changes. In times of crisis, people need strong leaders, and no leader can be as strong as the, well, only leader. I think people will ignore whatever arguments there are for whatever side and stay with the side of the President.

Although now, with popular opinion so turned against him, that might not work out as well. I'd rather not find out. (:

I agree with what others have said on this post that the nation would rather have the worst that the Republicans can do against terror than the best that the Democrat's have to offer. Kind of like the worst place in heaven is better than the best place in hell.

It pains me to say it, but I actually think that Hillary would do a better job (and would stay the course) in Iraq than any of the other Dems (except Biden), and than some of the Republican candidates (Ron Paul and Romney come to mind).

Why do I think that? Hillary has been pretty consistent on the war (even if she's had to obscure her position), and that has to be hard for her, whatwith her being a senator from the Heart of Liberaldom (New York). Don't get me wrong, she's a straight Marxist and our economy would go down the tubes if she and the Dems control the White House and Congress, but I think she'd be consistent with the war.