Running Against Straw

Hillary Clinton: "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism. I am not one of those." That comes to us via Matt Stoller who, quite rightly, would like to hear Clinton explain who she means.

Meanwhile, I'd also like to hear someone in the press corps ask George W. Bush when, exactly, he made the determination that Iran is a more serious threat to American interests than is al-Qaeda and why he did so. This is the sort of issue we ought to have out in the open.

UPDATE: A colleague notes that John Kerry has said terrorism isn't as big a threat as many people think, and (ironically) Bill Clinton has said global warming is worse than terrorism. The difference between "the threat of X has been overblown" and "the threat of X is not real" will be left as an exercize for the reader.

Comments

Clinton is careful in her comments. She said, "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism."

And she's correct. Although, some people may find such tranparently hollow attempts to talk tough on terrorists to be nothing more than grotesque platitudes. These people may not vote for her.

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | February 19, 2007 9:46 PM

Welcome to the HRC nightmare, in which the only thing wrong with the last six years was execution.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 19, 2007 9:50 PM

Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism. I am not one of those.

Hillary really should lose the "some folks" canard, and also should drop this line of reasoning too, unless she can actually point to someone. I'm not sure anyone has suggested, since 9-11, that terrorism is not a real threat, but there are certainly folks, as Matt points out in the update, who argue that terrorism is not our only, primary, or greatest threat.

Posted by Jimm | February 19, 2007 10:29 PM

My prediction for the 2008 campaign - this will not be the first time a candidate campaings against straw.

Really, this is little more than an unfortunate rhetorical tic of Clinton's. Matt, don't make me get Garance on you again.

Posted by theCoach | February 19, 2007 11:30 PM

Well, I don't believe the country faces a real threat from terrorism. One fluke attack (which could have been prevented with reasonable airline security measures) resulted in a handful of maniacs murdering 3,000 people - almost as many people as were killed in car accidents that same month. Sorry, but I'm not shaking in my boots at this dire threat. No society can prevent lunatics from acting out with 100% certainty, and it is not worth sacrificing our sacred freedoms in the vain hope we can prevent it. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have agreed.

Posted by Josh G. | February 20, 2007 12:17 AM

The difference between "the threat of X has been overblown" and "the threat of X is not real" will be left as an exercize for the reader.

I don't know, Matt--who would know "overblown" better than the Clintons?

Posted by dj moonbat | February 20, 2007 12:24 AM

The only real threat I can see from terrorism, is that no matter how hard we try to fight it, there always will be terrorists. And so our "War on Terrorism" becomes annother failure that America's enemys can use as motivation and propaghanda.

Posted by Steve M. | February 20, 2007 4:18 AM

Might makes right

That is, a plainly false statement becomes true if it is put in the subjunctive. As Eric noted, Clinton's statement is entirely true. John McCain would probably say "terrorism is not a threat" if someone were to hold a gun against his daughter's head and threaten to pull the trigger unless he did so. Thus Clinton's claim is clearly true.

I, for another one, may lose my patience with her.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | February 20, 2007 4:58 AM

Some Democratic candidates may have a problem justifying their weasel words about Iraq. Very many democrats will have no problem just wanting to puke in her face.

Posted by tiptap | February 20, 2007 8:31 AM

Sheesh. Some people. (Wanders off, shaking head.)

Posted by RT | February 20, 2007 9:58 AM

Matt,

Actually, Bush decided within days of 9/11 that Iran was a greater threat than Al Qaeda - along with Iraq, Afghanistan, and other non-democratic regimes in the region. The idea that the war on terror would go after states that sponsor terror groups, and not just the groups themselves, and not distinguish between the two was a fundamental neoconservative point of ideology since '01. Richard Perle takes credit for pushing the idea through David Frum in the immediate hours after the 9/11 attacks, and considers Bush's articulation of it as policy to be one of the most important moments in the war on terror.

If you're just now noticing that Bush's strategy in the war on terror has been to go after Al Qaeda by going after non-democratic Middle Eastern regimes... well, I think you've been missing the point.

Posted by Simon | February 20, 2007 5:07 PM

"Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism."

I think this is the reason Clinton is turning off so many potential supporters: she rarely says things clearly, and when she does, the position is absurd. Here she is saying that, you know, there could be someone running who, I don't know, might tell you that terrorism isn't a real threat. Well, what does that mean? Substantively, very little. And to make things worse, she still adamantly supports her war vote and tells those who disagree to look somewhere else. What sort of strategy is this? I was willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but unless she turns this around real soon, she will, despite her formidable advantages, lose the support of the Democrats who she needs to win primary elections. Obviously the subtext here is being "tough" on national security, which she fails to recognize is a trap laid by Republicans for Democrats to fall into. The first Democrat to say he or she is smart on national security will lead the pack. After all, only the most rabid Bush supporters believe this administration hasn't been utterly incompetent, so showing some competence on national security is politically smart. Rather than being politically smart, Clinton is trying her damnedest to appear "electable." And we all know how well that's worked out for the Democrats in the past...

Posted by morte | February 20, 2007 6:16 PM

Actually, more people died of hunger in 2001 in the US than died of terrorist attacks.

Where are the priorities?

Posted by Sonia | February 21, 2007 8:03 AM