Is U.S. Safer Since 9/11? Clinton and Rivals Spar

[ProSense]

Is U.S. Safer Since 9/11? Clinton and Rivals Spar

By MICHAEL COOPER and PATRICK HEALY
Published: June 6, 2007

<...>

In a televised debate on Sunday night, Mrs. Clinton, who has tried to minimize her differences with her rivals on commander-in-chief issues, bluntly disagreed with a main rival, former Senator John Edwards, who had just said that the administration’s so-called war on terror was little more than a slogan.

“I believe we are safer than we were,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We are not yet safe enough, and I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should be following.”

The senator, a New York Democrat, was referring to domestic security efforts since Sept. 11, 2001, and not to the consequences of the war in Iraq or President Bush’s foreign policy, her advisers say. Yet rival Democratic campaigns, arguing that the war in Iraq has harmed security in America by breeding terrorists, are using the remark to highlight differences with her on the issue of the ability to be commander in chief, which political analysts view as a threshold issue for any woman running for president.

The campaign of her other chief rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, sent supporters and reporters a memorandum on Monday titled “America Is Not Safer Since 9/11,” which cited research from the State Department and other groups that described terrorism as an accelerating threat. Advisers to other candidates, meanwhile, argued yesterday that Mrs. Clinton might be misjudging Democratic primary voters, who are loath to credit the Bush administration with much of anything.

Advisers and supporters of Mrs. Clinton said yesterday that she was not endorsing the Bush administration’s strategy against terrorism, but highlighting the improved efforts of Americans on the front lines to detect and deter terrorist activity since 9/11. They said that Mrs. Clinton also thought the war in Iraq had been a distraction from the fight against terrorism, but that, day to day, people are safer than they were.

“I think the vast majority of Democratic primary voters, and Americans, would agree with Senator Clinton,” said a campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson. “I think most Americans, for instance, would think that air travel is safer today than on Sept. 10.”

more

(emphasis added)

Is Wolfson serious? If he is, Hillary has completely misread the implications of Iraq and Bush's war on terror.

[Bitwit1234]

1. In a way Hillary is 100% correct

While bush's Homeland Security has not provided the country with the type of security that would prevent or catch REAL terrorist, our attention to terrorism has done one thing. Made the country more aware of the fact that we are vulnerable and that we must be on guard against REAL terrorist attacks.

[ProSense]

2. So we're 100% more aware that we're vulnerable and the war is breeding terrorists,

how is that safer?

[karynnj]

4. The real question is whether the risk is any greater than it was on 9/10/01

Anti-American sentiment in the middle -east is unquestionably higher and far more intense. That, in and of itself, increases the risk.

Have we really secured the country better. I listened to a Commerce committee hearing where Chertoff was questioned about both airport and port security. On the ports, he was asked when he would have the promised plans for how ports, such as Boston, NYC, and New Orleans etc could be quickly and efficiently evacuated in case of an act of terrorism. The senators were told they hadn't completed it, but were working on it. This was in either June or July, 2005. Obviously, they did not have a viable New Orleans plan by late August. (Katrina would not even be a tough test for that plan - there would not be a forecast indicating that the problem was likely in case of terror.)

We could prevent the specific attack used on 911 - because the doors to the cocpit were locked and hardened. That though was not a function of the war on terror. It had been recommended years earlier and was already done on El Al flights.

Consider that the frequency of attacks on the US is that they are pretty spaced out. In the 90s there were the attack on Olklahoma City and the first WTC. There were other attacks stopped. Fortunately terrorism in the US is a rare event. As such, it is very hard to say if it increased, decreased or stayed the same.

[LeftCoast]

3. Well, we're safe from liquids while flying

Whether we're safer against terrorists...I kinda doubt it.

Long live the War on Moisture! :eyes:

[edwardsfeingold08]

5. This was a turning point for me on Clinton

There's no way she's my second choice. I don't see how she's any different from many of the Reppublicans I saw in their debate when it comes to the global war on terror b.s. and invoking 9/11 any time she is flustered. I hope Obama actually stands up to her at the next debate and has the courage to contradict her in person instead of quietly doing it the next day in an e-mail. To me it seems like Clinton is Giuliani light and Obama is playing it safe to preserve the option of being her running mate. I hope I'm wrong.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. I agree with you on all counts nt

[ProSense]

7. A ceasefire in Iraq between "U.S. enemies"

Posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1054800&mesg_id=1054800">here.