Clinton had held a news conference Dec. 31 to say the five were believed to have crossed the border into New York state with false documents. She said the Homeland Security Department should establish an office dedicated to improving security along the nation's northern border.
Now, Canada is asking for an apology from her. Do you think she should apologize?
posted on January 10, 2003 07:21:06 AM new
No. She didn't accuse Canada of equipping, training or abetting terrorists & sending them into the US. Merely saying that it is thought they came from that direction is nothing to apologize for. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
The alert was not the first time Canada was falsely accused of allowing terrorists to cross its borders. Reports flashed around the world after the Sept. 11 attacks suggested several of the 19 air pirates entered the United States from Canada.
Those reports turned out to be false but their effect lingered for months, particularly in the U.S. Congress where suspicions about Canada's more liberal immigration policies remain.
posted on January 10, 2003 09:48:51 AM new
When you take comments out of context, you lose your credibility, Bear. That's one of Linda's problems. Don't make it yours.
The correct quote from Paul Bagala is,
"She is the most admired woman in America," Mr. Begala tells Inside the Beltway. "I think she has been one of the strongest, clearest voices that we've had. She is as strong as garlic in a milkshake."
posted on January 10, 2003 10:17:25 AM new
Linda_K
I like Senator Clinton. However, I am not blind to her faults.
Would I vote for her to be President, sure I would. However, if another Democrat is what I consider a "better choice," I wouldn't. This goes for the Republican (or whatever party) candidate, who may be a "better choice."
Now for my opinion about this recent terrorist fiasco.
I don't understand what happened. The guy told the FBI some information. So the FBI issued a warning. Then we find out it was not true. Did the FBI know that it was not true information? In one article I had the understanding they did. So why did they go along with the game? Were they seeing what would happened if their attention was toward the "invaders?" Or is the FBI incompetent?
I have seen at a lower level of law enforcement that informants can and do give bogus information which causes trouble for innocent parties. The informants may the guilty party, but they want to claim someone else did the crime. Or they are "plea bargaining."
Anyways, the whole thing is "funny."
Senator Clinton for being a "newbie" in Congress, from day one (or thereabouts) have IMO grandstanded. I believe she grandstanded here.
IMO she shouldn't apologize. I don't think she said anything that was offensive to Canada. It's not like she accused anyone of being like Hitler.
The borders do need to be protected.
I think they are killing the messenger.
During the 60s draft era, Canada accepted the draft dodgers. I think we have had a great relationship with Canada, however things are different now.
I compare that situation with my neighbors. Let's say a neighborhood house dwellers (not excluding me) is bringing "unwanted" behavior or activity that poses or could exculate to pose a dangerous if not lethal outcome to an innocent bystander (another neighbor, visiter or someone driving or riding a bike in the neighborhood). IMO the other neighbors should keep an eye on the situation and nip it in the bud as soon as possible.
In a sense, I think I or anyone would have a right to do something about it, using legal and lawful resources.
What do you think Linda_K? Do you think she should apologize?
posted on January 10, 2003 10:20:55 AM new
No, she should not apologize.
And to be fair, let's state her version.
But an unrepentant Ms. Clinton, who has long demanded tighter security and more border guards along the Canadian-U.S. border, said: "I will continue to do so.
"As a member of the U.S. Senate representing New York, I take very seriously my responsibility to speak out about the U.S. government's responsibility to allocate increased resources to the protection of our northern border," she said. Among other measures, Ms. Clinton wants U.S. President George W. Bush to appoint a northern border czar to deal with Ottawa on border issues.
A widespread perception persists among Americans that terrorists use Canada as an easy route to enter the United States despite significant joint efforts to exchange information and tighten controls at crossing points since the terrorists attacks of Sept 11, 2001. None of the 19 suicide hijackers in those attacks had entered from Canada.
Ms. Clinton has praised recent Canadian-U.S. border efforts but says more are needed.
"Anyone who knows upstate New York is aware there are many, many places that are unpatrolled, unsupervised," she said on New Year's Eve as a nationwide dragnet was under way for the five men who had supposedly infiltrated the United States.
"A serious terrorist intent on doing us harm could cross our border in many, many places."
Now, Linda you can continue talking to yourself. I have to go out for awhile.
posted on January 10, 2003 10:27:02 AM new
Helen - You never fail to give me a chuckle. to be fair LOL
The quote you made is in the article which I posted. Just because I'm not like you, in that I choose not to copy and paste every full lengh article, doesn't mean all who may be interested can't click on the url and read the rest.
I want to wait and see if we get any more opinions before I answer. But I will. I was very interested in reading stockticker's and kraftdinner's opinions too. How they see this 'from the other side'.
Sure, no hurry.
I too wish to see our Canadian friends' (not just stockticker and kraftdinner, either) POV. I look forward to reading the posts.
posted on January 10, 2003 12:41:46 PM new
In the end - and I mean fairly short term - I think an open and unguarded border with Canada will be a thing of the past. To go casually across to have dinner or go to a park will be too much hassle.
There seems to be a huge lack of respect for Canada as a nation by the US. As if they were a slow child that just refuses to come along quickly enough. They have a history of being much kinder to the individual despite a less free legal heritage.
I just wonder how much further down the road we have to go before people are trying to sneak across the armed border INTO Canada to escape repression in the US. And how the government will rationalize their being in the same position morally as East Germany used to be.
posted on January 11, 2003 07:11:32 AM new
Bear sed: "(Hillary Clinton) is as strong as garlic in a milkshake." And Just As Distasteful
Helen sed: "When you take comments out of context, you lose your credibility, Bear." "The correct quote from Paul Bagala is, "She is the most admired woman in America," Mr. Begala tells Inside the Beltway. "I think she has been one of the strongest, clearest voices that we've had. She is as strong as garlic in a milkshake."
LOL, Helen! Bravo!
Bear states that he is an staunch supporter of the Republicans. Is this not an exact example of how they operate? Keep going, Bear, and you'll soon be able to run for office, or as a radio commentor with your own show.
posted on January 13, 2003 08:43:33 AM new
I feel the same way about Hillary as bear does.
I posted this question to see how many who are always accusing the Bush Administration of causing let's say 'discord' with other nations, would support her actions, which obviously has caused some 'discord' between our two countries. Alienation of others happens on both sides.
When I first read this article, I thought 'why would she be expected to give an apology?'. I agreed with her in that we should lock up [in the sense of more screening - not lock up totally] not only our northern boarders. But I do question why she doesn't appear to be concerned about our southern ones as well.
As I continued reading I read that being told many of the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 didn't come via Canada. I'd not heard nor read that before this article. And other than this article and the one stockticker posted, I still haven't seen it verified.
While we are worried about how and where the terrorists are entering our country, when it is proven that we were wrong, what's the problem with offering a simple explanation and apology to those we have offended? Not just from Hillary, but from the Bush administration as well.
We alone are responsible for guarding our own boarders. And Canada does appear to be working with us in many ways.
posted on January 13, 2003 10:49:19 AM new
>But I do question why she doesn't appear to be concerned about our southern ones as well.
I agree. I think that someone should put the Question to Hillary, "Does Hillary Support or Not Support the tightening of our boarders with Mexico and Cuba/Haiti?" And if she answrs in the Affirmative, which I suspect that she would, how many Americans would disagree with her?
Her comments addressed the porosity of the
US Canadian border, not the failure of Canada to take action. It is OUR responsibility to maintain control of illegal entry to the US, not Canada's.
The whole question seems odd to me - I have always believed Canadians to be among the most rational people on the Earth but for them to take offense at her comments seems
irrational to me.
Hillary may have lots of things to apologize for but these comments aren't one of them.
