Dems Speak No Evil Of Islamic Jihad

IBD ^ | January 7, 2008

[Kaslin]

War On Terror: If the New Hampshire debates settled anything, it's which party has the stomach to take on radical Islam. The Democrats couldn't even identify the enemy. Not once. Really.

---

We scanned the transcripts of Saturday's debates hosted by ABC News and tallied up the references to Islamic terrorism. The rhetorical divide between Democrats and Republicans on that score alone — ignoring the yawning gaps in policy — is stunning.

None of the four Democrat presidential candidates — despite running for an office that demands they lead the ongoing global war against Islamic extremists — could bring himself or herself to define the enemy we face as Islamic.

Their combined references to "Islam" or "Islamic" totaled zero — even though moderator Charles Gibson prompted them with a question about "Islamic radicals" threatening the U.S. with nuclear terrorism.

But Democrats refused to go there. Out of respect for their constituency, there was a complete blackout regarding Islamic jihad.

[Sundog]

Al Qaeda's greatest Hits! Compilation

[redpoll]

I used to think that the 9/11 would bring the Left around, but now I think that several nuclear detonations in American cities still wouldn’t do it. In fact, I’ll bet if New York or Chicago is vaporized, the Left would blame “religious radicals” and start trying to arrest Baptists, Orthodox Jews, and Baha’is.

Sadly, we’re apparently fighting for the United States on two fronts, one against enemies outside our borders, the other safely coccooned in the Upper West Side and Montgomery County and West Palm Beach.

The election of the Democrats to the White House will also, sadly, hasten that day. I fear for my son at moments like this.

[kingu]

To hear the Democrats in their debate, you'd think Islamic radicals had stopped plotting new attacks against us and scheming new ways of killing us.

One issue will not win the White House. People want the border closed, period - they'll debate the fate of illegals, but they want it sealed. Even John McCain gives lipservice to that. They don't want gay marriage; they've been explicit every time it's come before the voter. I think there are some /very/ clearly defining differences between the Republican and Democrat parties, I just wish we had more of a crop of those who were willing to embrace those differences.

Who the heck ever thought we'd have a presidential candidate for the Republican party that says 'I like mandates'. Thanks, Romney, didn't think it could get any more absurd than it was.

[MtnClimber]

I will repeat what was posted to me once upon a time: Birds of a feather flock together.

[Sender]

With Democrats fully in power, I agree that even a nuke wouldn't make them take off the rose-colored glasses and confront Islamic terrorism.

They would say that such an unfortunate event was the result of 8 years of Bush and the neocons pissing off the entire world.

[piytar]

Of course not. Why would the Dems speak ill of their ideological allies? /no sarc here

[rmlew]

ACtually, thanks to the feckless PC Bush administration, we are more Islamicized daily.

The leadership of CAIR and MPAC should be in GITOM, not working witht e FBI on sensitivity programs.
Could you imagine the German-American Bund teaching the FBI during WW2?

[weegee]

Well it doesn’t have the same polling as when they vent about Christian abortion clinic bombers...

[secretagent]

Or just the opposite. I can see Hillary as champeen genocider, once she gets spurned by jihadists.