Reply
Fri 24 Aug, 2007 11:46 am
WASHINGTON (CNN) - She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'" Clinton told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post. "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 added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."
Clinton was in the crucial early voting state Thursday to unveil her healthcare plan.
In a way, she is correct since she and her pal in the Senate have done NOTHING to increase the defense of our borders, keep nickel and diming legislation regarding Patriot Act etc.
She must have a verry high opinion of herself is she thinks she is the best one to lead this nation.
As Ms Obama said, if you can't control your own house, how can you run the White House.
You can't even spell "Hillary", when it is (presumably) right in front of your nose.
And you don't seem to know that questions end with a question mark.
So why should we take any notice of your Hillary bashing?
contrex wrote:You can't even spell "Hillary", when it is (presumably) right in front of your nose.
And you don't seem to know that questions end with a question mark.
So why should we take any notice of your Hillary bashing?
Do you have a "effing" opinion on the issue?
Apparently, liker all the other frog liberals, you hide behind irrelevance.
Care to respond to the issue?
Bush, a republican, and his administration have had 5 years to catch Osma Bin Laden but have been bogged down in Iraq attacking a government that had nothing to do with 9/11. So how do you figure the republicans would be better than a democrat. On the national level I would vote for any democrat before any republican for president. One idiot every 30 or so years is enough.
woiyo wrote:Apparently, liker all the other frog liberals, you hide behind irrelevance.
You sure are a dumb tosser. And a stupid xenophobe. You clearly cannot read any better than you can write. If you read my details properly you would see I am a Brit whose location is France. (That means I live here.) And I am not a liberal, I am a conservative.
As to the issue, considering the showing the current GOP incumbent has made dealing with terrorism (and everything else), I should think that my sweet ass would do a better job than President Chimp, so Hillary would certainly be the best Democratic candidate to "deal with that".
Re: Hillery Looking for Excuses - Already?
woiyo wrote:She must have a verry high opinion of herself is she thinks she is the best one to lead this nation.
Can't this be said of EVERY SINGLE canidate? I don't see how this is a negative for her but not for Rudy, McCain, Edwards, etc.
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said yesterday that it would give to charity $23,000 it had received from a prominent Democratic donor, and review thousands of dollars more that he had raised, after learning that the authorities in California had a warrant for his arrest stemming from a 1991 fraud case."
"Already, Mrs. Clinton's opponents were busy trying to rekindle remembrances of the 1996 Democratic fund-raising scandals, in which Asian moneymen were accused of funneling suspect donations into Democratic coffers as President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were running for re-election."
If someone can point out exactly which charity is getting the money, it would be helpful. Somehow, I don't believe this will happen. She is constant in one thing and one thing only. She is a not honest.
I believe it's the "Orphans for Hillary" charity.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace