For John, BLUF: Is it sufficient to ID our enemies simply as "terrorists"? Nothing to see here; just move along.
Over at Hot Air Columnist AllahPundit talks to the "New DNC ad: Why can’t these Republicans be respectful of radical Islam, like George Bush was?".
Here is the DNC Video, "Inciting Fear Isn't Presidential". I found the link at Mediate.
Back to Hot Air, here is the lede:
Via Alex Griswold, who cites a new Rasmussen poll showing that 56 percent of Democrats — Democrats — think we’re at war with “radical Islamic terrorism.” I’ve played this three times and still can’t believe I’m watching an ad from the Democratic Party pointing at George W. Bush as a role model on how to think about terrorism. The punchline is, Bush himself mentioned “radical Islam” in his presidential rhetoric; he even used it in the State of the Union, for cripes sake. He used the adjective “radical” because he wanted to suggest a distinction between “real” Islam and the version preached by jihadis — which is the same thing the Republican candidates featured in the ad are doing. It’s these DNC imbeciles, not the GOPers in the ad, who are effectively equating Islam with “radical Islam” by refusing to acknowledge the distinction.The New York Post notes about The Honorable Hillary Clinton's foreign policy speech Thursday at The Council on Foreign Relations:
Finally, like Obama, Hillary refuses to call “radical Islamic terrorism” by its rightful name, saying it plays into ISIS’s hands. Same old, same old: After all, it’s not as if Obama’s refusal to do so has made things better.From the transcript:
We want to isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world.No ISIS, no ISIL, no IS, no Daesh, no radical Islam.
And what is the difference between a terrorist and a violent extremist?
At the end of the day the image that comes to me is that of DWS, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff
No comments:
Post a Comment