.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Friday, January 11, 2008


“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... 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... They get it. Democrats don’t. They talked a lot about ‘fighting’ —fighting insurance companies and big business and Wall Street and polluters. But will they fight the real enemy—Islamic terrorists?... These contrasting performances in New Hampshire should crystallize in voters’ minds more than any other recent example how one party understands the titanic challenge we face from radical Islam, while the other decidedly does not.”

—Investor’s Business Daily


Post a Comment

<< Home