Americans have wondered, ever since the rise of ISIS followed the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in April 2013, what kind of terrorist attack it would take for the Democratic leaders to be as united with Republicans and Independents as they (allegedly) were after the World Trade Center attack in September 2001. After the horrific ISIS attacks in Paris this week (the worst in France since World War II), the civilized western world united in its support for France, and welcomed the news Saturday that French aircraft had bombed the Syrian city of Raqqa, one of the ISIS strongholds.
France did not wait for UN approval. France did not wait for an international coalition to be formed. France did not wait to poll its citizens before retaliating.
The same day that France confidently started its attacks against ISIS, the three Democratic presidential candidates were still refusing to call the terrorist organization a product of “radical Islam” during their debate Saturday night in Des Moines, Iowa. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley each declined to use these words after specifically being asked by the CBS debate moderators whether they agreed with GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio who has stated, “We are at war with radical Islam.”
Secretary Clinton stated that using the term “radical Islam” would be “painting with too broad a brush”, and that the term was “not particularly helpful.” “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam,” she continued. “I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists.” (So there’s a difference between a jihadist and a radical Islamic extremist? Please, enlighten us Secretary Clinton…)
Clinton went on to say the world is at war with “violent extremists” and those who “use religion for power” and “oppression.” (Because the world is full of Christians and Jews who have used their religions for this?)
Senator Sanders was even more out there: He has decided that our best way to battle the terrorist threat is to defeat…Climate Change! If only the ISIS jihadists had more fertile land to grow crops, they wouldn’t be waging war against the more moderate Islamic countries; they’d all be too busy farming!
France was definitely not going to wait for climate change to be resolved!
DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz must be upset right now! Here she goes and sets up a Presidential Debate on a Saturday night, when she was sure to have very little viewership, what with everything from college football (the undefeated Iowa Hawkeyes had a home game Saturday night) to date nights occupying most people’s time. Throw in a Pay-per-View UFC Women’s Title fight, and the DNC debate literally becomes a box to be checked with only the purest of activists bothering to watch. Basically, make no news; get in, get out, preserve Hillary’s strong party reputation.
Instead, because of the strength shown by the French government (something Americans have been searching for in recent years) and the lack of willingness to call evil for what it is, many now want to know what else was discussed Saturday night. (Thank goodness for DVRs!)
For those not into watching paint dry, watching the recorded version of this debate will take a lot of coffee! But I can summarize the debate with these takeaways:
- The Democratic candidates still believe pandering to the progressive sheep who still believe that the radical Islamic terrorists have no interest in attacking the United States – ever!
- Senator Bernie Sanders will make President Obama look like President Reagan if he is somehow elected. He spent more time denouncing the Clinton e-mails in the last debate than addressing the tragedy in Paris. When he did, it was a pivot to Climate Change. He looked very uncomfortable talking about anything foreign policy.
- O’Malley and Sanders tried to find a little traction and separation from Clinton by addressing her strong ties to Wall Street. Weak arguments at best – especially Sanders. If Sanders really wanted to go after the front-runner and make a legitimate strike for the nomination, he sure didn’t show it Saturday night.
- For a party that believes in resource and energy conservation, the Democratic National Committee literally wasted every dollar and kilowatt of energy spent on this debate. Nothing new was learned for the better from this event from a Democratic perspective; this event actually created enough political fodder for the Republican candidates to get them through the upcoming holiday weekend of campaigning.
Senator Marco Rubio was on NBC’s “Meet the Press” the following Sunday morning, pointing out that not saying “Islamic State” would “be like saying we weren’t at war with Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party but weren’t violent themselves.”
“I don’t understand it,” he continued. “We are at war with radical Islam.”
Even the White House confirmed on Sunday that the United States is a war with the Islamic State.
“We’ve been at war with ISIL for some time,” White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes stated later in the same show. “Over more than a year now we’ve conducted thousands of air-strikes.”
By not joining the overwhelming majority of Americans who understand the threat this organization poses, the three Democratic candidates clearly showed that we will be in a much more dangerous position if one of them somehow were elected next year.
To hopefully assist them and their supporters in confronting reality, the acronym is explained below:
“ISIS” means “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria”; it does not mean “Independent State…”. (One would have thought the news of Christian beheadings by ISIS earlier this year would have enlightened them to this.)
We can only hope the political party loyalty will eventually yield to what most Americans know – ISIS is a radical Islamic state whose mission is to destroy all non-Islamic states. It must be destroyed and weakened, and any other states that support it need to be held accountable as well.
The next President MUST openly acknowledge this – the alternative is to have this proven to them when ISIS launches similar attacks in the U.S.
Voters will decide in November 2016 which alternative they prefer.