I'll note that I troll-rated you for those evidence-less comments.
You troll rated me for not providing links when I said that Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Bush Jr. were strong on national security?
No, I troll rated you for saying that she gave a similar response on national security to various other Presidents without providing evidence, and then refusing to provide the evidence when asked. If you insist on pushing circular reasoning here you won't win many converts. We expect evidence.
I am not here to convert anyone. I always encourage everyone to support the candidate of their choice.
I think her campaign shows she is strong on national security. That is one of the most important factors voters will be looking at. I don't see it as "circular reasoning" to say that previous candidates who were successfully elected president were also perceived by voters as being strong on national security. Judging from the responses I have seen in the media and on the blogosphere there are a lot of people who thought that Clinton gave a reasonable and strong response.
For the record I do not troll rate others on this site or any other sites including my own. I think everyone should have a right to an opinion as long as they are not causing problems and do not cause harm to others.
I uprated you so that we could see this exchange, not because I agree with you.
We as Democrats always seem to say what you're saying - we can't have this debate now because it will kill our nominee. Well, when should we have this debate?
Thank you clarkent.
I personally think the Bush administration framed this as a "war" so they could use it for purposes other than fighting terrorism (i.e. eliminating constitutional rights, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc. with all of that being a giant leap toward fascism). At the time all of this started they had tremendous public support from a nation fearful of more attacks. I agreed with what Wesley Clark and a few others said at the time that it should have been handled as a police action not a military one.
The concept of this being a "war" is entrenched with the American public. No matter how false the original premise was or how big a sham it was to start with it is for the time being an important issue to voters. The simplistic "raise your hands" question was a trick question and we all know that. I think Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Richardson did the right thing by raising their hand and I think the others took a political risk by not doing so. The public wants to be assured that the next president will be against terrorism and will protect national security. A new administration can change the focus and direction of how best to go about doing so but they will never get that opportunity if they get bogged down in a public debate saying they are "against the war on terror" or they do not believe there is a "war on terror".
During the 1968 presidential campaign Gov. George Romney (Mitt Romney's father) said what he was really thinking when he made his famous statement that he had been "brainwashed" about Vietnam and it was "the most tragic foreign policy mistake in the nation's history." Even though he was correct that quickly ended his campaign for president.
Where did Carter say that the first thing he would do in the event of a terrorist attack would be to retaliate?
That is a real heck of a quote.
The radical right wing has worked assidiously over the half century to push the meaning of "strong on defense" in the direction of more and more extreme actual actions.
That shifting grounds makes is absurd to equate being "strong on defense" in the mid 1970's and the turn of the century.
