I have yet to hear a single good argument for Clinton.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]

War on Terror: This is mostly about surrounding yourself with the right advisers. I suspect that a Cabinet formed by Sen. Clinton will contain many of the figures we saw in her Husband's Administration, which fought terrorism the right way IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Without pointing out specific individual attacks/failures:

I worked in CT during both Late Clinton ADM, Bush pre 9/11 ADM and Bush Post 9/11 ADM.

My dispassionate assessment is that they both have handled it in an extremely FAR from right/correct manner.

Clinton's policies were essentially politicly face saving at all cost. IOW, give it some resources but keep it on a very short lease tying the hands on those working on the pointy end of the sword. Even confirmed, actionable intelligence was dustbinned to avoid any "uncomfortableness" for Clinton. We were treated as undesirables doing something that was necesary but shouldn't be allowed any real power, influence or publicity.

To a significant degree, the same went for the 1st 9 mos of Bush ADM. Post 9/11, Bush went to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. It was cool for us in the trade for a short while, in that we suddenly were able to take decisive action when required. OTOH, after just a few short months it became clear that there were NO limits to what we could do and that has just continued spiraling onward to the point that congress and The Executive branch are actually niting over whether torture is torture.

In Summary: Giving credit to Clinton for doing it "right" is to be wholly uninformed and to support the current anti-terror policies is to support a complete, public departure from the rule of law and basic American Precepts.