NRO's Goldberg falsely claimed Clinton said Republicans are "tougher on terrorism than Democrats"
In his November 2 National Review Online column, NRO editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg offered "questions" for the media to ask Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Referring to comments Clinton made at an August 23 house party in New Hampshire, Goldberg wrote: "You've claimed that you are the Democrat best able to 'deal' with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?" Clinton, however, did not say Republicans are "tougher on terrorism than Democrats." As Media Matters for America has noted, in her August 23 remarks, Clinton criticized Republicans for their handling of terrorism. Clinton said: "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."
Goldberg wrote in his November 2 column:
When promoting your autobiography, you gave interviews expanding on your personal feelings while insisting you'd rather talk about substance. And yet, you told the Washington Post that you wouldn't discuss the political substance in your book. Why? Because playing the victim helps?
You've claimed that you are the Democrat best able to "deal" with the Republicans' natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?
Your husband granted clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists linked to more than 100 bombings and several murders on the eve of your run for the Senate. You supported the decision. How does that square with your claim to be tough on terror? What did you think of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1970s? Why did the New World Foundation approve a grant that ultimately went to PLO-affiliated groups when you chaired its board in the 1980s? Does your infamous decision as first lady to sit silently next to Suha Arafat as she viciously and deceitfully propagandized against Israel weigh against your tough-on-terror credentials? How about the $50,000 you took in 2000 from the anti-Semitic and pro-terror American Muslim Alliance, which you returned only after being criticized for it?
Do you think Republicans won't ask these questions? Why? Because you're a woman?
The Associated Press reported on August 23:
Clinton said she also would be better at handling the unexpected, including a terrorist attack.
"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," she said. "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well."
Media Matters has noted that while discussing Clinton's comments on the August 24 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto similarly cropped Clinton's comments and asked radio host Ben Ferguson, "So, Ben, your take on this is that she knows in her heart of hearts Republicans are tougher on terror?" Ferguson replied, "Sure she does."
Can Goldberg provide a quote? A source?
That's not what she said. She basically said not enough people are smart enough to realize that the Repub foreign policy has been producing terrorists rather than disseminating them.
And don't forget - alienating our allies, whose help we need gather intel and extradition of these guys.
Oh yeah... and enabling the Taliban to re-group in the outskirts of Afganastan.
And allowing Osama Bin Laden to remain at large.
Oh yeah... And allowing Al-Queada to start up camps in other contries, and blow stuff up in London, Madrid, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philipines... Did I miss anywhere?
George W. Bush has about as much to do with there not being a post 9-11 terrorist attack in the United States as he does with there not being any bears in my living room.
Nice guy, I submit that it isn't our "fault" that Al Qaeda and the Taliban continue to exist. As for their "re-group", I'm sure they would take where they were before 9/11 vs. where they are now.
Yeah? Well I'd take our position in the War on Terror in early 2003 over where WE are now.
What's more - there are several different directions I would have taken us in at that time that would have had better results [then the one W. chose] by 2007.
And you're wrong. It IS our fault the Taliban & Al-Quaeda continue to exsist. We set out to destory them and (apparently) failed. So... who's fault is it?
They still exsist because we quit that job of destroying them when it was still only halfway done, and then instisted on staying in Iraq unitl that job (which never should have been started in the first place) is all the way done.
And allowing Osama Bin Laden to remain at large.
Oh yeah... And allowing Al-Queada to start up camps in other contries, and blow stuff up in London, Madrid, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philipines... Did I miss anywhere?
George W. Bush has about as much to do with there not being a post 9-11 terrorist attack in the United States as he does with there not being any bears in my living room.
Exactly, and letting bin Laden get away at Tora Bora.
I think MMFA is missing Goldberg's point here. If I read it correctly, he is saying that apparently Hillary thinks it's perfectly fine for HER to say that she would be tougher on terrorism, but somehow it's wrong for Republicans to say they would be tougher.
I don't see where Goldberg is saying that she said Republicans would be tougher.
We had the same reaction. You win.
ps. If you haven't read Goldberg's article, I strongly suggest that everyone do so even if you support Hillary. It is very powerful and asks questions everyone should want to hear answered.
We had the same reaction. You win.- anotheramerican
Happy weekend, Deputy Fife.Not to pry, but what does a person "win" by having the same thought process as you? ;0)
"Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?"
So, Clinton is saying she would be "tougher on terrorism than Democrats"?
Not the way I read it, he is not saying that. He is saying that she says she is tougher on terrorism, but wrong for Republicans to say they are tougher.
And it makes no sense, why in the world would Hillary say "it's OK" to say the Republicans are tougher on terrorism?
Now it's me who can't read.....oops.
Yes, she is saying that she is best equipped than any other Democrat to fight terrorism - but the Republicans can't say that? That is the contradiction Goldberg highlights.
But the "natural advantage" that he mentions is that of Republicans over Democrats. That's how he is portraying Hillary's comment. Hillary is saying that she's the best candidate to handle terrorism, but if that was Goldberg's point he would have included that part of the quote, don't you think?
Because she is the one who said the Republicans have a "natural advantage" between now and the election, Goldberg didn't portray that, she said it.
But it's not based on actual ability to handle terrorism. That's the point. Goldberg is portraying it as an admission that Republicans handle terrorism better, while Hillary was talking about a political advantage.
Where does Goldberg say that Hillary said the Republicans are tougher on terrorism? Why would he ever make such an idiotic claim, she would never say that.
"Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?"
That "so" makes it "why is it OK for you to say that Republicans are tougher on terrorism than Democrats?".
Of course she would never say that. Why would he make the claim? Why would John Kerry say that our troops are stupid? He wouldn't. But that doesn't stop dishonest partisans from pretending otherwise.
You're still missing it, in my opinion. "Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but OK for you to say so? - meaning it's OK for her to say SHE is tougher on terrorism.
So to follow your logic, Goldberg is saying that Hillary is saying Republicans are tougher, but why is it wrong for the Republicans themselves to say it? That makes no sense, surely you can see that.
I see where you're coming from, but it depends on what the definition of "is" is. I mean "So" is.
"...for her to say so" means "for her to concur" to me, not "for her to say the same thing about herself."
Goldberg is asking Hillary in essence "Look, the Republicans are saying they are tougher on terrorism, yet you say that is wrong......yet you also say that you are better at it than the other Democrats - how can you say that is right, but the Republicans are wrong?"
Because you're comparing a person to a group. The issue isn't individual Republicans saying that they themselves are better on terrorism. The issue is talking about Republicans as a group being better. Talking as a group is partisan posturing that includes Hillary as well. That's completely different from Hillary claiming to be the best in her party.
And who ever said that a Republican can't claim that they personally are the most qualified to combat terrorism? It's the generalization we're talking about, not about one specific person. If Goldberg's point is comparing one person saying that they're best to the Republican party claiming a general advantage, that's not a contradiction.
Huh? You're might be right, maybe he didn't say that she said it, but... Where did she say that it would be OK if she did say it?
(confused yet?)
This is confusing. What he is saying, I think, is if Hillary is claiming that she is best able to fight terrorism among the Democratic candidates, then why is not OK for the Republicans to say, themselves, that they are better?
Because one person claiming to be best among Dems is not the same as Republicans saying that they are better all around. If that's Goldberg's point, he should put down the bottle.
Why? If I tell you I am the best able to do something, but I tell you that you have no right to say that - what right do you have to say it then?
I meant what right do I have to say it? I am confusing myself here, sorry!
Your question doesn't make much sense either way. I don't see how it's analogous.
Hillary can claim she's better than other Dems at handling terrorism...and that Republicans are not better than Dems in general at it...at the same time. There is simply no contradiction there.
What? So she is equipped to determine "better", but not the Repubicans? Riiiiiight.
See above. You're conflating individuals with a group.
I don't believe that's Goldberg's point. Even if it is, then he's just being disingenuous one way instead of the way MMfA says.
To be fair, that's not hard for you when you're in a partisan mood.
My understanding of the point that you and AA just don't seem to get is this:
It's fine for Hilary to say that she has the most valid experience in her party for dealing with terrorism (based on her exposure during her time in the White House) in the same way that Bush could say that he has the most experience in his party for dealing with terrorism.
What is not ok is for Bush or any other Republican stating the Republicans are better than the Democrats at dealing with terrorism.
Seems easy enough to me, and it's not as if we haven't had plenty of articles hear that show the Republican press saying that.
Goldber is quoted above: Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they're tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?"
MMFA in the next sentence writes: Clinton, however, did not say Republicans are "tougher on terrorism than Democrats.
Wow! I don't know about you, but it seems fairly plain to me that nobody, including Goldbgerg ever said that she did say it.
I find this very odd.
Agree, unless we both missed it........MMFA missed it.
I had the same thought, I guess in MMFA eyes you must never talk about Hillary Clinton unless its the same context as the vague answers that she gives.
Sueeld, she provided an statement, Goldberg just twisted it.
AA
This is what she said
Clinton said: "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."
Republicans have an advanage becuase they are inpower and they exploit these and other sad events. Where does Goldberg get that she says Republicans are tougher?
And I am waiting for Rino to again accuse me of supporting terrorist because I am against waterboarding.
J let me get this straight.
Rino accused you of being pro terrorist because you are against Waterboarding?WOW than I must be pro terrorist also.
Amazing you get attacked from everyone, I remember you were attacked by some a few weeks ago for being too tough on terrorism? Am I off base?
Doris
Yes it was on the Olbermann thread yesterday so if you are against torture and Waterboarding you support terrorists.
I have been taken out of context so many times on this site you if I got a nickel for each time someone lied about me I could have a million dollars allready ;-).
I will never apologize for my position on Waterboarding, I think it is wrong, I think it is torture, I think the United States should never engage in it.
And as far as Goldberg and this topic, he is also taking what she said out of context. It is dirty tricks and its wrong.
Must be something in the water ;-)
Rhino heard that from limborg, and like a good dittoborg,he just repeats it adnausium
J - I think you missed it. Goldberg is not claiming Hillary said "Republicans are tougher". He is saying Republicans are saying it.
He is also asking Hillary why she can say she's better at it than other Dems and yet criticize Republicans for saying the same thing.
Does that make sense?
AA,
Did Hillary criticize the Republicans for saying they were better? Did I miss that? It's possible..The article & most of these posts have left me a tad confussed & with a whopping headache ;-)
Anyone got some aspirin?
Jeter,
I don't blame you. Typical Hillaryspeech. She never quantifies what exactly would give the Republicans the advantage.
My own guess is that when she implies, waffles, and prevaricates on issues like licenses for illegals, she is indeed giving the Republicans the advantage.
My guess is that Hillary's doublespeak will be the equivalent to Howard Dean's scream and Kerry's reporting for duty.
AA, It makes perfect sense - why some can't, or refuse to see it, is curious, but not unexpected.
What's curious is admitting that Goldberg's statements have you guys confused, and still blaming Hillary for that confusion. Unless I'm confused.
AAAAAGH!
Stop talking at me with "tough on terrorism".
I want SMART on terrorism, and I don't see any candidates yet who are.
Hi Pete,
What would you consider being 'smart' on terrorism?
Just one example, but Col. David Hunt said it better than I can.
Great link, and in a place I would rarely seek truth. Thanks!
Excerpted from John Fund's article in today's WSJ Opinion Journal
Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.
Mr. Fund, a columnist for OpinionJournal.com, is author of a forthcoming revised edition of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." (Encounter).
Fund just knows that when more people vote (and we are talking legitimate voters here) that people vote Democrat. He just wants to stop minorities from voting because he knows that hurts Republicans.
My local paper runs Goldbergs column. It's gibberish. Does anyone understand what he's trying to say most of the time?
Nah. The guys a goof.
He only got his column because his mama is Lucianne Goldberg
Jeter,
Next you'll be saying Hillary only got elected to Senator because she's married to Mr. Bill. :-)
I would. And I will ;-)
If she gets to the White Hous [God help us] it will be because of Bill.
says the guy who voted not once but twice for the lying failure known as george bush.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hillary got elected to the Senate because she received the most votes.
Oh, and the SCOTUS had nothing to do with it, by the way.
Pete,
You are correct that Hillary won the election.
However if you believe that being Bill's wife had nothing to do with it, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. :-)
"Can Goldberg provide a quote? A source?"
Nah, that would be real journalism and that's against RW policies.
via MSNBC: ABRAMS: Another Conservative Republican lawmaker announcing his resignation today after being exposed as both the homosexual and the hypocrite. On October 26, Washington State representative, Richard Curtis apparently dressed in red stockings and a black sequin lingerie top and let‘s just say he wasn‘t on his way to a Halloween party. According to police reports, Curtis who has voted against gay rights legislation visited an erotic video store where he was seen receiving oral sex from an unidentified man inside a viewing booth. The report says he then invited another young man from the store back to his Spokane hotel promising $1,000 for sex. What followed we really can’t repeat on TV. Let’s just say involved lingerie, rope and stethoscopes. They all made appearance. All of these came to light after the conservative lawmaker apparently contacted police claiming he was the victim of extortion by this man.
Joining us now is Cody Castagna, the man who Representative Curtis allegedly paid to have sex with him and his lawyer. Thanks very much for coming on the program to both of you. We appreciate it. Alright, Cody, let me start with you, how did you realize that this guy that you had had sex with was actually a lawmaker?
CODY CASTAGNA, CLAIM HE HAD SEX WITH LAWMAKER FOR MONEY: That would be after he gave me his wallet.
ABRAMS: Why did he give you his wallet?
CASTAGNA: Because he didn‘t have enough money to give me at that time and so he gave me his wallet as collateral.