Give’em Hell — Hillary?
My anti-Hillary Clinton creds are a solid as anyone’s. That said, her opponent, John Spencer, is an dissembling idiot. And so is Matt Drudge.
The Drudge headline reads, “HILLARY COMPARED TO BIN LADEN IN SENATE AD…” Which is a totally true statement, except for the words “compared” and “to.” What we’re left with is that two people are mentioned in the same ad. Thanks, Matt!
That’s nothing compared to the wool Spencer has for your eyes. The thrust of his ad is, “But Hillary Clinton opposed the PATRIOT Act and the NSA program that helped stop another 9/11.” As I understand it, the whole Anglo-American investigation was due to some brutal torture in Pakistan.* The rest of the investigation was “mere” followup. That followup was done mostly by Britain’s MI-5. Yes, the American government did much to help, but little of it was covered by the PATRIOT Act. And none of it couldn’t have been made legel with a court order even without PATRIOT.
At the end, Spencer promises he “won’t play politics with our security.” It seems he already has.
Look. If the Republicans want to get serious about stopping Hillary, then they’ve got to run somebody serious enough to stop her. Spencer is a joke.
Meanwhile, at least half of the likely Republican 2008 presidential nominees are jokes, too. Seriously unfunny jokes. The only guy I can stomach, Rudi, will almost certainly not win the primary. It’s enough to make me think that if Hillary is the best New York has to offer, she might be the best the country has to offer.
I don’t like it, but right now there isn’t much choice.
*I do not support torture, end of statement. Unfortunately, rational people often have to stand by “our bastards” when they run a “friendly” country. IE, Saudi, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, old Marcos in the Philippines, etc.
Here’s something to ponder: All those people who complain when we coddle friendly autocrats… where were they last week, when it was revealed that Pakistan helped us stop another 9/11, via needle-nose pliers and a car battery?
That pisses me off. I sent Spencer money specificaclly earmarked (on the memo section of the check) to “beat the hell out of Hillary!. Crap.
Aren’t you overstating here a bit on Pakistan’s help in nabbing terrorists.
This is the same country that not only covertly condones terrorism and is hiding a few big guns; but was also responsible for helping in the terrorist attacks on Mumbai, India’s financial capital, on 7/11.
This country is after all, the epicenter for jihadi movements worldwide.
Nobody is going to beat Hillary in New York, so you have the tradition that says a party has to run a candidate in every election producing a situation where no serious candidate wants to waste his time and effort. The only person that can beat Hillary at this stage is Hillary, and she would have to try awful hard.
Stephen, dopn’t sell Rudi short in the primaries. It all depends on how the votes are divided up. He’s going to be running against more than one candidate, assumming he does run.
I’m putting my hopes, if not my money, on McCain.
Is it true that the Pakistani torture was the key ingredient in this breakup?
I could never imagine myself voting for Hillary but current positions held by her party members, and my gut feeling that maybe the Dems need to hold the whitehouse a while and make the tough decisions for a change, I might surprise myself and dent a chad for her.
Stephen, its great to have you back. Your voice is needed now more than ever.
Stephen,
A hearty welcome back to the land of blogreaders.
That said, you post that “as you understand”, re: Paki torture as being the initiator of the Brit breaking of the terrortist action.
While I’ve not perused all the news/blog sites, everything I’ve seen so far puts this scenario into one Left wing Guardian article, with an opinion quote as the money quote.
I’ve read your list of frailties, and, as a one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel senior, I find myself asking, give me a reason for said understanding!
Would seem I’m reading an Andrew Sullivan post.
As far as anybody donating to Spencer; money, toilet, flush!
As far as Rudi goes, much as you may support his social values, or lack thereof, he’s not going to be the nominee.
McCain will bury whomever the Donk’s nominate, which is why I think Hillary will wait to ’12, McCain, if he’s still alive, will be too old and infirm to run again, and, as of today, the Repubs wouldn’t seem to have anybody in the wings. (Well, there’s Jeb, who’d be a great President, but no way is another Bush going to get elected, even in 2012)
Mike
Of course, such rules would apply to GHCQ (the NSA’s British analogue) as well. Iyman Faris,
the Brooklyn Bridge plotter was
detected through facilitated NSA
procedures, as well as aspects of
the Patriot Act. So far as it goes;
this ad is even more grounded than
the Chambliss ad about Cleland’s
support of union rules for DHS
Think about what Hillary would get away with in the prosecution of the war on terror.
Killing terrorists would be cool again! Warrantless wiretapping a necessary good!
Works for me.
Blaster,
I’ve read the first two books of a great trilogy, “Axis of Time’
wherein the amazon review of volume 1 says:
“At the start of Australian author Birmingham’s stellar debut novel, a United Nations battle group, clustered around the U.S.S. Hillary Clinton (named after “the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States”), is tasked in the year 2021 with stopping ethnic cleansing by an Islamist regime in Indonesia.
Mike
The Clintonistas left the terrorists pretty much alone, and only took action against churches, gun dealers, widows, and Cuban refugees.
Don’t write the Republicans off so soon. How many people were talking about Dubya in ’98?