Monday, November 16, 2015
The Democrats Prove They Can't Be Trusted On National Security
The Democrat Presidential debate last Saturday drew a record low of viewers (which might have been intentional on the part of CBS and the Clinton campaign). Or perhaps because by this point, everyone knows the fix is in for Mrs. Clinton. But it had its moments worth noting.A day after the atrocities in Paris, not a single Democrat presidential candidate will utter the words 'radical Islam' :
DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists. Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed and the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?
CLINTON: I don't think we're at war with Islam. I don't think we're at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists who have --
DICKERSON: Just to interrupt. He didn't say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don't...
CLINTON: I think THAT you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists, but I think it's not particularly helpful to make the case that Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with, that we've got to reach out to Muslim countries.
We've got to have them be part of our coalition. If they hear people running for president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam, that was one of the real contributions, despite all the other problems, that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a Mosque in Washington, we are not at war with Islam or Muslims.
We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression. And, yes, we are at war with those people. But I don't want us to be painting with too broad a brush.
DICKERSON: The reason I ask is you gave a speech at Georgetown University in which you said, that it was important to show, quote, "respect, even for one's enemies. Trying to understand and in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view." Can you explain what that means in the context of this kind of barbarism?
CLINTON: I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it's very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect.
Historically, it is important to try to understand your adversary in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react. I plead that it's very difficult when you deal with ISIS and organizations like that whose behavior is so barbaric and so vicious that it doesn't seem to have any purpose other than lust for killing and power and that's very difficult to put ourselves in the other shoe.
The full transcript showing the replies of the other two non-entities is available at the above link.
For whatever it's worth, I remember President George W. Bush's visit to the Washington DC Islamic Center quite well and the disgusting capitulation it actually symbolized quite well...although I'm reasonably certain Mrs. Clinton hopes you won't.
Of course Mrs. Clinton can't very well talk about radical Islam at all. Just look at the list of megabucks donors to the Clinton Foundation. As she knows, one doesn't say anything that might offend paying customers.
The presidency, if she achieves that, is already bought and sold.