Quote:
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, and to stir it up just a little 
I get that Clinton tried and failed - but so did W, who indeed went into Afgan, etc.
So, despite Clinton's posturing (based in fact though) - - what does this interview show about how the D's would have handled 9/11 (post) differently. Remember almost all D's voted for the war in Afgan and for the war in Iraq. So, they can make the argument that W screwed those up, which he did, but they will likely as history demonstrates be seen as flipp flopping.
So, my question is, what can the D's show to the American people that will demonstrate they are not weak on national defense, etc. I can tell you I think that talking about no spying and no torture ain't gonna cut it because most Americans do not care about that and, mostly correctly, think those avenues had lead to stopping the terrorists. So, what are the D's gonna do is the question. |
Clark still would have been at his post and they would have been paying attention.
Ds are not saying no spying (just no illegals spying) nor is there any proof that torture has lead to any foiled plots. It has, however, led to many false confessions. It is also leaves our soldiers vulnerable to torture out of revenge. I agree though that they should not run on these issues. I think the distinctions are too complex for most people to get. They don't pay close enough attention.