Hillary - Bush has made us safer --- Edwards/Obama no he hasn't

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Democrats-Debate.html

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.

As a senator from New York, ''I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists.''

Still, she said, ''I believe we are safer than we were.''

...

rest at link...

un fucking believable...is there another planet i can move to?

that. Did she see the pictures of NOLA after the hurricane? Does she know that the money appropriated under Clinton for levey repair was canceled under Bush? Did she see the list of toothpastes brand that are to be thrown away?

I could go on, but the corruption that has touched every department in the federal government has made us less safe, at home and abroad.

You know, the one that suggested our foreign policy was partially responsible for Muslim extremists hating us?

Maybe she needs the same reading list Ron Paul suggested to Giuliani.

"Yesterday we reported on the fact that Hillary Clinton had announced, along with New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, D-NY, that she will chair the probe looking into the federal government's response and environmental clean-up efforts in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

full story here:

http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/160507Probe.htm

:rant:

Your link shows your subject line to be an intentional falsehood.

These things are getting annoying, lets get some real quotes in there and actually go by what people say. People are mad because she did well tonight, and i am feeling better about her now. She was quite exciting actually.

She held her own just fine among her colleagues vying for her front runner status. I noticed how irritable the board is tonight most likely because Hillary is surging ahead while the other 2 favorites are falling behind. Hillary looked excellent and in charge. She looked rested and ready to enthusiastically engage Wolf's questions with quick concise answers. She delivered. I noticed the audience loved her responses. They rewarded her with liberal applause several times for hitting the mark. End the War in Iraq! And the comment about the diplomatic Dick Cheney...not.. drew laughter and applause as a the coolest left handed remark of the night.

...why did she say we were safer???? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with her statement until I understand where she is coming from here. I am not looking to flame or be flamed, I can make the argument either way myself*, I want to know what SHE says. That is key here, not what you or I might think she meant. The OP is right in pointing out that statement she made. If you have an insight as to why she said this please enlighten us. We have a right to ask and an equal right to know.



* We are NOT safer because: We have distanced ourselves from our allies. (To name just one of many).
We ARE safer because: We removed that airbase in Saudi Arabia, one of the major reasons osama bin laden himself states as to why planned and ordered 9-11. (best I can come up with but an honest debate point.)

She said, "we are safer...(pause).. but, we're not safe enough"

Bush was not in her thoughts when she said it, and shouldn't be in the OP..

The OP IS misleading!

If I wanted to know what the OPs thoughts were I would have asked the OP. If I wanted to know what faux news thought I would have asked my freeper kid. I am hoping that I will get an honest answer here from a supporter! I genuinely want to know where Senator Clinton is coming from with HER response. If you all don't know, I guess I'll have to await the spin and go from there. I am NOT looking to be a detractor here. I heard her say LIVE what she said and I was disturbed by it at the time. How does Senator Clinton feel that we are safer???? I already agree that there is more work to do to be even safer yet.


btw: I thought it was condescending of each person to call Senator Clinton "Hillary" in the first half of the debates. Those same candidates were much more formal to each other during that part. She was the ONLY one that happened to in the first half....(at least from what I heard). (A bit of cultural chauvinism perhaps?) That changed in the second half when the candidates started calling each other by first names on occasion. I figured this was likely pointed out to the offenders which prompted a bit of a change in that second half. I am not sure if ANYONE called her Senator Clinton in the first half except perhaps the moderator. (Off topic and my apologies to the OP...I am trying to prove that I am not a an enemy combatant here to any of my fellow DUers...just hoping to get an answer relevant to the subject here from folks who know Senator Clinton better than I.)

watch it now..

She just repeated the very answer that has you stumped. The answer in of itself taken out of context is meaningless. When heard in it's full content and meaning, is nothing that would indicate an ulterior motive or meaning. CNN's transcript will be out tomorrow, you can read it in it's entirety and judge for yourself.

I'll read the transcript to see if I missed something and perhaps not have to re-ask this question.
From what I read in this thread, I'll not get an answer to my question here. I come to the DU because it is the one place I trust to get answers like this...it is the one place that I can learn about what the candidates are all about. I know that any given candidate can say pretty much anything and make it seem believable. I count on my fellow DUers to keep them honest. If I have an issue with a candidate, I know I can come to the DU and get that issue confirmed or proven wrong.

I am sorry Tellurian, (cool name btw), but to be honest I was startled when Senator Clinton said that. It sure sounded to me like she was implying that we are safer. Safer than what? I expect to hear that we are safer out of a republican. I genuinely want to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt here...I want to believe that I misunderstood what I think I heard her say. I am quite aware what it was she was responding to and to whom. Senator Edwards was the first one to address her as "Hillary" and I WAS offended that he did this then but I was absolutely unprepared to hear any of these candidates say that we are safer IN ANY CONTEXT. I suppose you are right in saying I am stumped...I was hoping to get un-stumped here. Thanks for trying and sorry that I am being so thick-headed here. I definitely will check out that transcript.

for your kind and thoughtful response. Just a slight recap-

at the moment I was typing a response to you, the replay was showing again on cnn. The segment you were asking about was replayed again. I stopped to watch it and really commit to memory exactly what I was seeing and hearing and the intent at that moment of her statement. The question posed to Hillary by Wolf included the words Bush and "are we safer" ?...not as the body of her response as writ in the OP. Hillary was reiterating the impact of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, setting the stage for her answer, which repeated Wolf's original question "are we safer", her response was,... "but not safe enough".

If you would.. after reading the cnn transcript of the debate, would you post back here once again the impression/perception you received after reading the transcript? I'd appreciate that very much..sorry, if I was a bit short with you..I was really exhausted late last night. :)

I find plenty of links to parts of this issue. In each case the entire context is unavailable. Trying to understand what she was saying from these links is unfair. Thank you for your understanding response. I believe you DO understand that I am not coming at this as a supporter or a detractor. I respect each candidate. I am not here to flame any candidate at all. I hope more of my fellow DUers can be this way....we are all on the same side here.

It seems to me that if I am wondering something about a candidate, I should be able to go to that candidates supporters and get the real skinny. I am quite aware that by going to the detractors I will hardly get an accurate accounting. When I saw this thread I knew that I would find someone here to help me out. (Looks like I have...) If I was a bit short myself, my apologies also...I was trying to get at what I feel is an important bit of information and feeling frustrated.

I will continue my search... If and when I can gain access to those written transcripts I'll be back as you requested.

Aren't the "Tellurians" the race from an Ice planet, blue skinned and with antennae? I keep thinking that they are...not sure... Ok, I googled it: "Earthling"! Cooler yet! When I saw the name I thought it was from Star Trek. In the last series: Enterprise, there was a race of beings who were by nature quite suspicious of everyone, (including humans) but then they eventually aided the crew of the Enterprise in saving the Earth from evildoers.... gotta respect that! They became early members of the Federation Of Planets.
c

I looked at cnn yesterday and they are taking their time getting them up..

"Enterprise, there was a race of beings who were by nature quite suspicious of everyone, (including humans) but then they eventually aided the crew of the Enterprise in saving the Earth from evildoers.... gotta respect that! They became early members of the Federation Of Planets."

And Tellurians are mostly Gnostics..

Not confident how much I have here but the relevant material appears to be as I heard it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/se.01.html

Now I am back to being alarmed. It is possible I am misinterpreting here but it appears to me that Senator Clinton is saying that we are safer then we were. I suppose one can debate that we are safer or not from many angles given the context. Are we safer from further 9-11 style attacks because of increases in security? I THINK this was her meaning but not sure here...it IS impossible to tell...if so then this is indeed debatable. (I am quite confident that Senator Clinton was not suggesting that we are safer from Senator Edwards's bumper stickers-(sorry, resistance was futile).)

We DUers are sensitive to bushco talking points, (propaganda). When someone makes a statement like: "Iraq is better off without saddam hussein." We hear it as propaganda because we KNOW that the world is much less safe than it was when he still held power. Only bush supporters buy into that statement although they use it less and less. (Remember even a year ago how they would look us in the eye all filled with self righteous indignation and ask us if we felt that the world was better off with saddam still in power?.... I answered yes then and today I answer HELL YES!!!, but nobody seems to be asking anymore.)

I DO NOT think that the Democratic front-runner and the candidate who has a great chance of being America's next President is a bush supporter!

I feel quite alarmed here for this reason: This is not normally a statement uttered by a Democrat. Folks "can" interpret this statement as a piece of bushco propaganda. The bushbots use it often enough that we dismiss it out of hand by them immediately when we hear it. When we hear a politician whose party affiliation we do not know say that "...we are safer now" OR "We must fight them over there lest we fight them over here", in pretty much any context we can safely assume them to be republican. Senator Clinton is ABSOLUTELY NOT a republican, she has more than earned our respect here. If possible we should find out what she means by this and why she said it.

I think this is important: Flaming Senator Clinton or her supporters over this is unfair in light of who she is. I hope we can get to the bottom of this. I hope Senator Clinton's detractors can afford her and her supporters a little respect here. We are all Democrats, we are all on the same side and most importantly: WE ALL NEED EACH OTHER! Senator Clinton is right about this: The differences between us are minor compared to the differences between Democrats and republicans. Let us NEVER lose sight of that!
chknltl


(Gnostic, a word I had heard before but not one I was familiar with. Wiki helped here and I see that there are many commonalities to my own understandings...many indeed) c

(edited to add the word: TRANSCRIPTS to the title)
c

or an attempted broiling.. I'll be the one in the dragon skin..and a smile!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3306263

Thanks for posting the Transcript..

Oh, I see, she's been watching faux...

"this question is hypothetical" in order to ignore every other question she was given.:eyes:

The candidates allowed the moderators to ask questions in the hypothetical during the last debate and were criticized harshly the next day by the press and media for their answers. I'm sure, due to the unanimous reaction of the candidates tonight, they all were in agreement beforehand to disallow the moderators to go that route asking questions in the abstract.

Hillary was the most vocal and got the spokespersons job of cluing Wolf in to their decision.

:shrug:

She was arguing that the danger was real. She said nothing about bush, and the issue under discussion had nothing to do with bush*

That's the bullshit that the ruling classes and the 'war on terror' pushers want you to believe!!!!

Terror is NOT A PROBLEM, it's a tactic.

All nations and people use Terror...always have and will for a long, long time until this stupid human race is rendered extinct or evolves.

"WAR ON TERROR" IS A BULLSHIT BUMPER STICKER SLOGAN!!!!!

Hillary, you've got SHIT FOR BRAINS if you really believe it isn't!!!

Ah, but she doesn't REALLY believe it's not a slogan to scare and chill the masses. She knows damn well it is and in good ubbermenchen fashion...perpetuates the scary myth...

A worthy candidate for president of THIS united states of amerika...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that we are safer, not dumbya made us safer.

when they recycle that quote for an attack ad on Hillary if she's the nominee.

this was just in the NYTimes piece without any explanation, but it could very well be bad news for Clinton. dumbya isn't running again, but certainly the repugs could use it to their advantage.

Of course, I also want to know how we're safer, what with Iraq & all. :thumbsdown:

Anyhow, I'll wait to see the whole piece. I'm just irritated with the OP for deliberately misquoting something that could already be bad enough.

she was offhandedly giving * credit for making us "safer" b/c NOW means *

what a dumb@$$ thing for her to say! does she actually believe her own bullshit, or is she as usual just pandering?

first, let's ask you directly whether you agree with her. do you?

i totally disagree with her. why?

well, let me count the ways.
1. we have greatly weakened America's image, influence and prestige in the world
2. Iraq has been a recruiting vehicle for Al Qaeda
3. our military has been depleted and weakened
4. we have failed to capture Bin Laden
5. we have failed to address unaccounted for Soviet nukes in a meaningful way
6. much of our National Guard is in Iraq
7. we are still inspecting less than 1% of container cargo entering the US
8. we've intimidated agents in our intelligence services from outing deficient security policies

Agree with any of those?

Go ahead. Explain to me all the wonderful things bush's Executive Branch has done to make us "safer". Or do you disagree with Hillary's assessment?

now will you answer the questions I raised?

that's how these little conversations go.

you made a post. i asked you some questions about what you wrote.

then you respond to my questions and also can ask me anything you like. then I respond to your questions. and so on ...

if you just want to stop right here, that's fine with me.

you're saying i "won't answer anything" but you haven't asked me anything.

I ASKED YOU FIRST! I ASKED YOU FIRST!

:rofl:

where's your proof?WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!
TO DIVIDE IS TO LOSE-I THINK THATS YOUR REAL AGENDA-FACT IS THERE ISN'T A CANDIDATE FOR THE REPUBLICANS THAT CAN BEAT A DEMOCRAT IN "08"
SO HEAL NOT INJURE OUR PARTY!

your points were based on a lie. HRC was responding to a remark from Edwards that the War on Terror was just a bumper sticker slogan. The issue was not bush, and hillary said nothing about bush. Here is your question:

Go ahead. Explain to me all the wonderful things bush's Executive Branch has done to make us "safer". Or do you disagree with Hillary's assessment?

HRC said nothing about bush making us safe. Your question is based on a lie

the repukes have been in charge of our safety for most of the time since 9-11 then who else would she be implying was making us safer??? I am really asking...if anyone dares to try to explain to me who she is implying made us safer....???

she did not say that bush has made us safer. Your question, the one you demanded a response to, was about bush* and the executive branch; not the republicans

if hillary says we are safer than who is she saying has made us safer??????????????

and unlike you, I am unable to read her mind

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

BTW I've answered yours.

there's no interest in dialogue or providing evidence and facts

here was my question to you not based on the OP but based on YOUR POST:

first, let's ask you directly whether you agree with her. do you?

you just said you answered my question. prove it. do that and I'll be happy to answer as many questions as you want to ask me.

just show me where you answered my perfectly legitimate question. you said this:

Sen. Clinton said that she believed that we are safer, not dumbya made us safer.

i didn't say it; you did. it's not what the OP said; it's WHAT YOU SAID.

all I asked you was whether you agree with Hillary's statement and you can't even answer that.

Your reading comprehension skills stink.

From the OP: Hillary - Bush has made us safer. No, Clinton said that we're safer, not that dumbya made us safer.

From post #11: Of course, I also want to know how we're safer, what with Iraq & all. :thumbsdown:

so, when you said "I also want to know how we're safer, what with Iraq & all.", it's OK to interpret that to mean that you don't necessarily agree with Clinton's statement that we're safer? is that correct? you're saying you need more information to make that assessment.

see if you agree with this if you're not all tuckered out answering my questions. i'd answer yours but you still haven't asked me one.

do you agree with the following assessment of how safe we are:



which seems to work better for you? the statement above or the one you made about what Hillary said in the debate?

You'll always have 'I ASKED FIRST! I ASKED FIRST! :rofl:

you have to ask me a question before I can answer one.

you just said i won't answer your questions. you have NOT asked me a question anywhere in this thread.

if you ask me a question, now that you've answered mine, i will answer your question.

if you don't want to talk to me further, that's more than fine with me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We'll all die.

The only variables are how, when and where.

Sen. (bullshitter) Clinton's opinions won't change any of those variables any more than any other presidential (bullshitter) candidates' opinions or policies will.

Anyone who thinks that these assholes, any party, can make YOU PERSONALLY safer is truly deluded. This is understandable since it is the delusion that the ruling classes (of which Hillary is a true member) have spent great time, money and effort imposing on your consciousness.

''I believe we are safer than we were''? Really?

.

The fact is that the "War on Terror" is as much of a failure as the "War on Drugs" has been. A whole generation of children in the Middle East and in the diaspora are now being indoctrinated to hate "the America" and "the West" and we have done next to nothing to disrupt that process. In fact, we've accelerated it by recklessly invading Iraq while literally ignoring Afghanistan. We are not fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, we are simply putting the nails in our own coffin. The United States of America has become a paper tiger. A Marshall Plan for the Middle East now!

If the U.S. monopoly capitalist groups persist in pushing their policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come when the people of the whole world will hang them. The same fate awaits the accomplices of the United States.

Mao Zedong, Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958).

:nuke:

anyone having to fire a bullet. All they have to do is continue deflating our dollar.

Of course, a Senator from New York might be more flexible on that point because Wall Street can continue usurping our investments, bleeding us dry with each well-planned crash.

let's call her Gooliana

If they are the nominees both parties will cease to stand for anything. Why not run them together on the same ticket and formalize this? We can call it the Unity-Corporate Party ticket.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is sucking up so many resources for nothing.

She should see pictures of Lebanon. Or Fallujah. Or New Orleans.

here.

is a sign that will read:

"This Occupation Under New Management!"
Your OIL still belongs to EXXON, USA!



As long as the PSA's are in effect, our new corporatist president will make sure that the American Military is stationed in Iraq to protect Corporate profits.

provide a link-or stand coreected!

terrorists.''

So have I Hillary.

And I want all of them gone from Washington, DC.

about how the FDA's budget is smaller than the school board of Montgomery County, MD, where FDA HQ are located, I realize more than ever that nobody's minding the store.

13 million food imports and 1% are inspected. Yeah, I feel safer. :sarcasm: