By GEOFF EARLE
The New York Post
August 24, 2007 —
WASHINGTON – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year’s election, warning that it could boost the GOP’s efforts to hold on to the White House.
Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it. “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,” Clinton told supporters in Concord. “So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that,” she added.The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP’s negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.
To quote Dan Akroyd: “Hillary, you ignorant slut”.
She’s afraid another attack by terrorists on this country would give the Republicans a rise in the polls?
All this damned time I thought the Democrats were really concerned about national security for the sake of U.S. citizens. I thought that the absence of such an attack is a good thing because of our vigilance. And, if it ever happens again, it will remind us that the threat is still out there and we need to finish the job of sending them all to ‘Allah’.
We’re all well aware of how “equipped” the Dems are. We got a good taste of that throughout Hillary’s Bill’s term. All 5 terrorist attacks against Americans overseas and here went unanswered. Just what the fuck does she mean by “mishandled” and “how much more dangerous “they” have made the world”? I lost count of how many times Bubba could have nailed Bin Ladin, but was too busy nailing Monika, getting campaign contributions from Chinese agents , obstructing justice, using the Office as a crime syndicate, and chasing his fat ass in circles. That worthless excuse for a ‘President’ hung national security out to dry. The world was made a much more dangerous place through Bill Clinton’s feckless mishandling of the threat posed by al Qadea.
Michael Scheuer, former CIA analyst: “Certainly the president got the information. And most certainly his closest adviser, Sandy Berger and Mr. Clarke—Richard Clarke, had the information from 1996 forward that bin Laden intended to attack the United States. There‘s no question of that. And in terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day…..But we had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act.
Here’s a quick rundown on Clinton’s ‘handling’ of terrorists by Richard Miniter, an investigative journalist who wrote the book: “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.
Hillary is counting on the short memories of the average American and the assumption that we’re too stupid to connect the Democrats to their own weakness on fighting terrorists. The Democrats have seizures over FISA, the Patriot Act, GITMO, and killing the enemy. Their idea of fighting the GWOT is cut and run, but Hillary Rodham Clinton wants us to believe that she’s “the best of the Democrats” to deal with terrorism.
Hillary’s pronouncement is strikingly similar to Madeline Albright’s idiotic “October surprise” comment:
“Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?'”
The real horrible prospect is another Democrat in the White House or worse yet, a contemptible ass who opines that another terrorist attack would be a boost for her opponents.