we are not safe. period. WE HAVE A MADMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND AN **^%%$#@ AG WHO IS INCOMPETENT. Our streets are less safe , we have few police and RNC appoined AG's. OUR National Guard is depleted so that we can not be safe in an emergency. Our crime rate is sky high..the figures lie. WE have guns on every gang member and rapist behind every tree. Not a open store on any street in any town is safe from robbers. Meanwhile the news yells and hollers about terror plots from over the hill gangs that have been "watched for over a year". Every day and all day long people are killing their children and themselves in despair. Safe? No way!

I agree. Clinton's response did not ring true at the time and I let it pass. In hindsight, it sounds as if she is trying to "play it safe" and pander to everyone.

The box she put herself in is the box she and her handlers constructed. Xanax answers and blissful smiles may not make enemies, but tend to deposit one in a soft, padded, cell where all sound is muffled, from without and within. She said the focus groupie thing last night and got burned. The truth may tick off rabid defenders of the present "administration," but Obama is spot on: We have never been in such national peril as we are at this moment. With troops stretched thin, we cannot respond to even one more major international crisis without calling up the Cub Scouts. With so many National Guard and Reserve troops on their third and fourth tour in Iraq, we pray for no bad weather or domestic tragedy. With all our former surplus gone and untold billions owed to the Chinese, we are broke. With a stupefied President and his merry band in charge, we are left with a stupefied Supreme Court and a weak, weaseling congress... the next 19 months are going to be scary and ugly. No, Hillary, we are in no way "safer" than before, and you know it. That sound you don't hear in the soft, padded, box is the silence of the lambs.

He's right: we are and it has.

well, well, well, Hillaryspeak finally boxed herself into a corner. I believe we are safer then were were, however I see nothing of Obama's proposals that will make us even more safe. As long as we are continuing this horrible debate about immigration, if the president and congress cannot get their eyes open and see that the problems along the mexican border may end up in our country as well, as long as we are doing nothing to seal off the southern border, then it is true, we are less safe. So far we have stopped even more problems from blowing up in our faces. One day, though someone will finally figure it out, and it may very well come from our southern border, and when the next big attack occurs, will we be ready? Maybe not under a republican or a democratic goverment, but we need to seal the borders. Plain and simple.

When you're talking about people who kill over cartoons, and always mention Afghanistan & Iraq together in their list of grievances it seems kind of silly to argue over this. The kiddie pool in DC is way to shallow.

Obama is right, we are less safe.

First Read, before you get caught up in sound bytes, I would like to see a long essay or reference to a story about 9/11, the politics of fear and the real reason for invading Irag. That is the job of journalists.Put this on your first Read post and no matter how long it is I will read it.

Business as usual: pick apart peripherial comments candidates make, ignore substance, pound them on the way they phrase a comment, choose some pointless incident to define them, ie. Edwards' haircut, Kerry's windsurfing...that's how we end up with amoron in office and the public doesn't understand the issues before them or how voting for a Republican will make life different than if they vote Democratic.

I have to agree with Obama. War is not the answer for terrorism; it is one of the reasons that terror exists. If our leaders really want to fight terror then they should look into different alleys where funding would actually make a great impact. This war has cost over $340 billion to date. According to the Borgen Project, it costs just $19 billion annually to end starvation and malnutrition or just $23 billion annually to reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. Wouldn’t aiding in the development of countries and supporting the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty be a better plan for attacking extremism?

Well said ElleC. The jihadis of today's world will be jihadis for the rest of their lives and those people we will have to deal with forcefully. However, the vast majority of the muslim wolrd would rather not blow themselves up thankyouverymuch. All we do when we send in our millitary is create the conditions necessary for the next generation of muslims to radicalize and escalate the war on terror. Extremists aren't born, they are created from their circumstances. This should not be confused with pacifism. The jihadis will have to be faught. However, our special forces are much better suited to go after small organizations (and they really are pretty tiny). But small strikes against command, communications, and supply networks would require leadership with vision and that is interested in winning the peace rather than securing no bid contracts for their friends and business associates. Just 595 days until we can finally start to make the necessary adjustments that should have started on 9/12.

so many people voted on a single issue and see what we have. If you tell someone you are a democrat in this free country you will be labeled a liberal and are treated worse than a communist. Until we all realize that we are all Americans and unite, we will never defeat our enemies abroad. By the way,I'm not for abortion however, I believe that is an issue between That person and God. By the way,the more you force someone about your point of views, the more determined they will be to stand their ground. Also the Moron that those hardcore ultra right wings voted for twice, I must ask you."Do you really feel safer?" I know I don't

Obama, by choosing and nitpicking on how an answer is worded, somehow reminds me of Bush and his cronies.

Amy and ElleC, why don't we just raise the surrender flag, take our ball and go home! In your world, the terrorists have won and our men, women and children are ripe for the slaughter. We've tried to help these folks and all they want to do is spit in our faces and give us the middel finger. If you want to give money to help them, go ahead, take out a second mortage or work the late shift at Pizza Hut! I'd prefer that all terrorists be mowed down and sooner the better! Now I wonder if Obama will go to Pakistand and negoiate terms of our surrender with Bin Laden? Highly doubtful, but with the far left pretty much ready for five times a day prayer, I don't doubt it!

"Wouldn’t aiding in the development of countries and supporting the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty be a better plan for attacking extremism? " That wouldn't put money in the fascists' pockets nor please the BushCo corporate masters.

Hillary used a George Bush / Rudy line of fear mongering. "Safer, but not safe enough." She thinks she has the DEM nomination secured and is moving to capture undecided Republicans. I think Obama can beat her in the primary, but Edwards, who can't win a general election may "steal" enough votes away.

I don't like this kind of fear mongering whichever side it comes from. Factually I think Obama is correct in that the Bush administrations policies in the Middle east have fostered more terrorism. However this constant fueling of fear by both parties in the name of politics and the complicit media are as much to blame for the policies of the last 6 years as much as any of Bush's policies. There will always be external threats. Our elected leaders should quit using fear to get elected and focus instead on effective policies that will reduce those threats.

Amy B, this is different. We are less safe. Hillary Clinton stated it clearly and proudly.

With obama at White house,america will be certainly safer.His view about the terroism is pragmatically right.He at this point he meet Prez bush. However I do not think the stablishment will give him chance to achieve his goal regarding his itinerary to the presidency.

Amy: I am a Democrat. An aging Democrat. I was at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. In the streets. "Served" my country in ways which I can never forget. I have never voted for a Republican. I don't understand how any generous, kind, compassionate, thoughtful, patriotic, moral, person can call his/herself a Republican. Yet some very fine people have and do. Nonetheless, I won't vote for them, on moral grounds. Ever. The Republican Party has been, since Lincoln's assassination, the Smug and Spoiled Party, the Pull Yourself Up By My Bootstraps Party, the Greedy Old Prigs. A pox on their house! But I question your assurance that voting Democrats into power will change things much. Tone, rhetoric, imagery. Maybe. The reality is too grim for that assurance. Only Richard Nixon was more corrupt than Lyndon Johnson in my lifetime. Jimmy Carter was (is) a saint who couldn't shuck peanuts. Bill Clinton sold out the truly disenfranchised, sold us and the rest of the world a used car named Globalization creating a whole new generation of slaves world-wide. Even here. Hillary is more of that with a dash of self-righteousness to match GWB. Maybe Obama is real. If so, he breaks all the molds. I'll vote Democratic until I die, but I live with fewer illusions the older and crankier I get. I'll even vote for Hillary and hope for a miracle.

We are not safe since Bill Clinton destroyed our ability to defend the United States by Conventional means. Read my editorial to follow: CAN WE DEFEND UNITED STATES? By George T. Nickolas, USN (retired) It has been said that if we do not learn from history will be doomed to repeat the tragedies of history. As we reflect upon the events of December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 are we doomed to have it happen again? Is the United States in danger of an unprovoked attack? Many indicated we are in danger of a nuclear incident within our borders. We are called the world’s only “Superpower” and if you factor our nuclear capability into the equation we are! Can we defend the United States in a major conventional war? That is where the question becomes more binding. Many countries have larger standing armies. China, North Korea and even Russia have more men under arms. Except for Russia, they have no way to transport troops to our shores at this time. But, several countries can affect our national interests around the world. That does not even include al-Qaida’s reported possession of nuclear weapons in 1998 and where a threat may exist. What can we learn about the need for conventional capabilities complement to our nuclear capabilities? What has history taught us in the last 65 years? During the Vietnam War we needed 26 ammunition plants to provide the conventional munitions to fight that war. During Korea we had 34 ammo plants that we could bring back on line, and it took 8 months to refurbish them. Two years after the Korean Conflict began on May 10, 1952, the Chief of Staff of the Army told Congress that we were rationing ammunition. He told Congress that World War II supplies had been almost depleted and production had not yet met consumption rates being experienced in Korean combat. During the 1990’s President Clinton wanted to reap the “Peace Dividend” and the Secretary of the Army was more than willing during BRAC considerations to eliminate ammunition plants. They cut 15 plants out of the 26 plants in the Army facilities inventory during that period. One was the modern small caliber ammunition production facility Twin-Cities AAP in Minnesota run Federal Cartridge Company for the Army. The company indicated they would store the automated equipment in the event it was needed in the future at no cost to the government, but the Secretary of the Army did not want to do that. The automated equipment was excessed and apportioned to Israel and South Korea. During the Iraq war the use of small arms ammunition has been so great that the remaining U.S. production in the private sector and at Lake City AAP has not been able to meet the need for small arms ammunition. That is why Israel was awarded a contract to provide hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition. Something that Congressman Neal Abercrombie of Hawaii was very upset about. Mr. Richard Palaschak, director of operations for the Munitions Industrial Base Task Force, told Congress: “while the Army’s decision to outsource ammunition production to a close ally was perhaps regrettable, it was necessary, as there is currently not enough capacity among American companies to meet the demand.” Congress needs to hold hearing on the Defense Industrial Base, especially ammunition production capabilities, and what can be done to insure that we have the capability to defend the United States with conventional weapons and ammunition. The remaining manufacturing arsenals are also important to maintain, but ammunition production must not be reduced or eliminated ever again. If we need to expand the ammunition base it must be done in Government Owned-Contractor Operated facilities as it has been done since the beginning of World War II. We need to maintain this ammunition base in an active or laid away status when we are not in an active conflict. It takes years to build, equip, and provide staffs for these facilities. To reduce to only 8 ammunition plants to provide the ammunition to defend this country is sheer stupidity and lack of understanding on the part of the Defense Department and Congress. The United States needs to make the decision, if we do not rebuild our conventional ammunition base, and that is to let the world know that we will use nuclear weapons on our adversaries in the event we are attacked or threatened. The next major point to be considered is why are we rotating units to Iraq three and in some cases four times? Once again we need to understand that we cut the Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard by 500,000 people during the 1990’s. It reduced the pool of people that could be called upon in the active army to 499,370 people. The United States is still in Kosovo and Bosnia nearly ten years after we entered those areas. We have 250,000 troops in 120 countries around the world. With that many people deployed around the world, we need more than 499,370 soldiers on active duty to protect the mainland of the United States. Last, but not least, the Congress, Department of Defense and Service Secretaries need to understand the history of ammunition production from World War I to the present. I have a ten-paged short history that is available to them and anyone interested. It is based upon information that we used at HQ AMCCOM at Rock Island during briefings to the ammunition production community during the 1980’s and is up to date with recommendations to Congress.

Jerry [[Amy and ElleC, why don't we just raise the surrender flag, take our ball and go home! In your world, the terrorists have won and our men, women and children are ripe for the slaughter.]]........Going home may be a "retreat", but it's not a "surrender." Retreat is the wisest choice when a commander finds a battleground is unfavorable. Commanders who stubbornly throw their troops into an unwinnable battle are fools, not winners. "Surrender" is when you lay down your weapons and allow the enemy to capture your army, which obviously is never going to happen to the US Army in Iraq. Equating troop withrdrawal with surrender is just plain silly. It's ironic that the Repubs who want to make English the official language are the first ones to corrupt the English language to make a stupid political talking point.

We feel far less safe since the current gaggle of uncollegial, back-stabbing quislingocrats began jockeying for the 2008 Chamberlain Award. From slime to sleaze to superficial and on to insincere and inexperienced, then on to freakishly nauseating...not one of them inspires confidence or trust. Unfortunately, the Reps aren't much better. For the sake of our Nation, we earnestly hope that some distinguished leader appears soon on the horizon to lead and to serve.

I would like to know what are the Democratic presidential candidates plans for the Middle East after they pull out of Iraq. Why is it that they never speak about the future of Democracy in Iraq? I would like to know their plans after they close Gitmo. What are they going to do with the prisioners there? I would like to know their plans after they stop or cripple our intelligence capabilities. Just how are they going to make us safer?

I would like to know what are the Democratic presidential candidates plans for the Middle East after they pull out of Iraq. Why is it that they never speak about the future of Democracy in Iraq? I would like to know their plans after they close Gitmo. What are they going to do with the prisoners there? I would like to know their plans after they stop or cripple our intelligence capabilities. Just how are they going to make us safer?

WE ARE LESS SAFE. WE MADE OTHER COUNTRIES HATE US. BRING OUR TROOPS HOME TO PROTECT U.S. CITIZENS AND KEEP THEM FROM BEING KILLED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY

I agree with Scott and wish I could be that succinct. As for Jerry, you advocate we raise the white flag and surrender. Surrender to who? The terrorists under your bed, who kicked the communists down the hall just for the opportunity to keep you awake at night?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):