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.Read the whole thing.
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.
Instead, Hillary Clinton defined the enemy generically as "stateless terrorists," while Barack Hussein Obama complained about the "politics of fear" that he thinks accurately defining the enemy has created.
John Edwards, meanwhile, continued to wage his own personal jihad against a phantom enemy of "irresponsible" corporations — from pharmaceutical and insurance companies to oil giants and multinational corporations.
Republicans, on the other hand, called the enemy by its proper name.
The candidates referred to terrorists and terrorism as "Islamic," while also citing radical "Islam" as the problem, no less than 22 times.
If the surge in Iraq was not successful and the war was a bigger issue--would these same Democratic candidates then be talking about Islamic terrorists? Probably not, since acknowledging their existence would mitigate against a pullout.
So what are Democrats afraid of?
Acknowledging that despite errors in conducting the war, Bush was right??
And if they are afraid of talking about it, how can they be expected to deal with it?
Crossposted at Soccer Dad