Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Hillary Clinton = Joe Lieberman lite:

Clinton in South Carolina: (h/t AMERICAblog)
"To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don’t face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I’m not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm."
Readers know where this blog stands on that issue (1, 2, 3).

What's interesting about that quote is that besides the standard-issue "terrorism is a threat" claim, there is an explicit recognition of those analysts that see al Qaeda for what it is: a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics that only have truck bombs and a willingness to commit suicide in their arsenal.

Several years ago, virtually nobody held that view, but with time, and increasing evidence of what al Qaeda can and cannot do, the consensus is beginning to change. Hillary doesn't agree with that. Does that make you confident about her judgement in such matters?

UPDATE: Kevin Drum comments on the terrorist threat:
... it's hardly an insurmountable problem: there are a finite number of truly likely targets; the technology exists to make them substantially safer in case of a successful terrorist attack; and the cost would probably be in the range of a few billion dollars. Not chickenfeed, but a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the Iraq war.
That is the correct approach. Not to defeat through military means a handful of terrorists scattered throughout the globe. But to plug vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. If that's what Hillary means, fine. But if she, as she sounds when talking about "enemies", is in favor of the whole panoply of "terrorist fighting" tools Bush has used (decreased liberty at home, more military abroad), we've got a problem.


Oh Quid, would it not befit a president to take seriously the intent of AQ to harm us? If you're right that they can't, good. Merely mentioning the topic does not make her eager to curtail civil liberties,

By Blogger brainhell, at 2/21/2007 2:53 PM  

Post a Comment