# Are Democrats Risking Another 2004 because of the "Radical Islamic terrorism" issue? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 6, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614 "2015-12-06T14:47:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/21 "2015-12-07T14:07:12Z")
The Republicans need to tell us how they would come up with the $2 billion _per week_ it will cost to prosecute a full on ground war against ISIS. They can either raise taxes, or borrow it from the Chinese. There really isn’t any other choice. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/22 "2015-12-07T14:19:58Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Hillary is viewed as hawkish enough to handle whatever comes her way. A last minute attack on the US in October 2016 is going to help her more than it hurts her. > [@](#): > > Republicans run to the cameras now and blame Obama every time an act of terror happens. It’s working for Trump as he stokes the fires of hatred and it may win him the nomination but it will not win the election for the Republicans. When you want to win an election, hope trumps fear. I honestly don’t follow you; if a last-minute attack on the US would help Hillary win the election because she’s viewed as _hawkish,_ then how does you get to that bit about how this-may-win-primaries-but-hope-trumps-fear-in-the-election? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/23 "2015-12-07T14:37:55Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I honestly don’t follow you; if a last-minute attack on the US would help Hillary win the election because she’s viewed as _hawkish,_ then how does you get to that bit about how this-may-win-primaries-but-hope-trumps-fear-in-the-election? Fear is propelling Trump in the primaries. Hillary has enough hawkishness in her to alleviate the fears, but overall has a much more hopeful message than Trump. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/24 "2015-12-07T16:15:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The Republicans need to tell us how they would come up with the $2 billion _per week_ it will cost to prosecute a full on ground war against ISIS. By cutting taxes. Duh!!! ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/25 "2015-12-07T18:21:18Z")
> [@DerekMichaels00](#): > > Is the Democratic Party playing with fire by trying so hard to please the [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) crowd? Or at the very least, seemingly dismissive of their fears about refugees? Is the liberal base endangering the party by forcing national figures to at the least, play lip service to their crazed view that despite the billions America spends to stop radical Islamist attacks, the hundreds of thousands of labor hours spent to do so or the constant attacks or attempts at them on all inhabited continents, that other religious extremisms are as dangerous? (Of all the religious extremism, Islamic extremism has killed more people in more places than other religious extremisms) First of all, you might want to drop the phrase ‘[MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) crowd’ - it makes you sound like you just woke up from a twelve year nap. No one talks about MoveOn anymore, and some of the younger millennials probably don’t even know what it is. Second, no, Republican whining about the lack of use of the phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ has no effect outside the base. Everyone else either knows the reason that the Obama and Bush administrations didn’t use the term or don’t care. What they care about is whether or not a candidate is going to make them safer or less safe. Which brings up the only point out of this that matters to the horse race: is this going to be a national security election? If it’s not, we can all go home now and welcome President Clinton. But it’s looking more and more like it is. And Obama is a serious liability on the national security front. Not because he’s done a bad job - he’s actually been one of the top Foreign Affairs presidents in my lifetime. But he’s a liability because people are starting to feel scared about ISIS, and for whatever poorly thought through reasons, that means they a hawk, a man (or woman) or action. And Obama projects too much of a thoughtful, non-active air. But Obama isn’t running. Clinton is. And she projects as much, much more hawkish. That may be enough. But unfortunately, what it means is that once these primaries are over, the election is going to sound like a game of ‘Quien es lo mas macho?’ Republicans are going to pound the national security drum because they don’t have anything else. Clinton is going to do so to defend that flank. And we’re all going to be worse off for it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/26 "2015-12-07T18:45:13Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Hillary is viewed as hawkish enough to handle whatever comes her way. A last minute attack on the US in October 2016 is going to help her more than it hurts her. Among thinking voters, sure. Among the chattering classes of security moms? Hell no. Remember, you are talking about the same electorate that returned GWB to office when it was blindingly obvious that it was exactly what bin Laden was trying to get them to do. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/27 "2015-12-07T19:21:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I don’t think what Democrats choose to call the threat is going to make much of a difference. What’s actually hurting the Democrats is a President who seems helpless in the face of the threat posed by ISIS. Not as much as having a president that gets us involved in another war would. If Republicans want to commit to sending ground troops to deal with ISIS to seem stronger on foreign policy that would guarantee a landslide for democrats. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/28 "2015-12-08T05:38:19Z")
Only if it goes badly. Arguably, the Iraq war went badly not because we sent in a lot of ground troops, but because there was no plan and not enough troops. BTW, those arguments were Democratic arguments that they made loudly and consistently for the next five years. So a President Clinton would presumably conduct a ground war in Syria and Iraq much better. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/29 "2015-12-08T05:55:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Only if it goes badly. Arguably, the Iraq war went badly not because we sent in a lot of ground troops, but because there was no plan and not enough troops. “But this time, we’ll do it RIGHT!!” Yeah, there’s a definition of “insanity” that applies here… > [@](#): > > BTW, those arguments were Democratic arguments that they made loudly and consistently for the next five years. It’s a bitch, being _right._ ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/30 "2015-12-08T05:56:56Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > “But this time, we’ll do it RIGHT!!” Yeah, there’s a definition of “insanity” that applies here… So Democrats were lying all those years? > [@](#): > > It’s a bitch, being _right._ Were Democrats right, or just opportunistically lying while knowing all along that ground wars in the Middle East are folly? ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/31 "2015-12-08T05:58:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > So Democrats were lying all those years? > > Were Democrats right, or just opportunistically lying while knowing all along that ground wars in the Middle East are folly? I don’t know where you’re getting any of that.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/32 "2015-12-08T06:02:38Z")
It was pretty much unanimous among Democratic officeholders and major Democratic figures from 2003-2008 that we didn’t have enough troops and there was no plan. That’s a pretty specific critique of the Iraq war. Now I realize we’re not supposed to hold Democrats responsible for the things they say(as Obama would say, it’s “campaign talk”), but the inference is pretty strong that more troops and better planning would have succeeded in Iraq, and given how things went once there actually was a plan and more troops, there’s a lot of evidence those critiques were true. But now Democrats are saying that a ground war in Iraq and Syria would fail no matter what? Has something changed in the last ten years to make that so? Seems to me that Democratic critiques were carefully calibrated to give Democrats the appearance of being strong on national defense: “We should have concentrated on Afghanistan! We need more troops! Better planning! Elect us and we’ll fight the war right!” Everything about Democratic actions and words since 2009 has shown that it was actually just a carefully calibrated stance. Their instinct is to not use ground forces at all, for any reason. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/33 "2015-12-08T07:55:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > but the inference is pretty strong that more troops and better planning would have succeeded in Iraq, Where are you getting **that?** > [@](#): > > Seems to me that Democratic critiques were carefully calibrated to give Democrats the appearance of being strong on national defense: “We should have concentrated on Afghanistan! We need more troops! Better planning! Elect us and we’ll fight the war right!” > > Everything about Democratic actions and words since 2009 has shown that it was actually just a carefully calibrated stance. Their instinct is to not use ground forces at all, for any reason. Seems to me the critiques were carefully calibrated to inform people that it was a spectacularly bad idea. 4500 troops dead and thousands more injured tends to leave a bad taste for using ground forces. And, we should have concentrated on Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/34 "2015-12-08T08:03:27Z")
Which is why after a short surge the PResident couldn’t wait to stop focusing on Afghanistan. Face it, the Democrats won’t fight. ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/35 "2015-12-08T08:18:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Which is why after a short surge the PResident couldn’t wait to stop focusing on Afghanistan. Face it, the Democrats won’t fight. Hillary would, but Obama won’t. Hillary flies flags at her rallies, and did have her hand on her heart at that anthem playing in 2007 when Obama didn’t. She believes in American leadership, which Obama seems tepid on. She wants American victory; Obama won’t say he does. But back to the issue of this thread, clearly, what Trump is trying to do is get the left to push back against criticizing Radical Islam because some on the left will say that doing so is akin to criticizing non-radical Islam, and using it to win the election. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/36 "2015-12-08T09:59:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It was pretty much unanimous among Democratic officeholders and major Democratic figures from 2003-2008 that we didn’t have enough troops and there was no plan. That’s a pretty specific critique of the Iraq war. Now I realize we’re not supposed to hold Democrats responsible for the things they say(as Obama would say, it’s “campaign talk”), but the inference is pretty strong that more troops and better planning would have succeeded in Iraq, and given how things went once there actually was a plan and more troops, there’s a lot of evidence those critiques were true. > > But now Democrats are saying that a ground war in Iraq and Syria would fail no matter what? Has something changed in the last ten years to make that so? > > Seems to me that Democratic critiques were carefully calibrated to give Democrats the appearance of being strong on national defense: “We should have concentrated on Afghanistan! We need more troops! Better planning! Elect us and we’ll fight the war right!” > > Everything about Democratic actions and words since 2009 has shown that it was actually just a carefully calibrated stance. Their instinct is to not use ground forces at all, for any reason. It might have been better, but in the long run it would have been disastrous no matter what. So most Democrats were wrong if they said more troops would have made a good outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/37 "2015-12-08T13:58:40Z")
> [@DerekMichaels00](#): > > Hillary would, but Obama won’t. Hillary flies flags at her rallies, and did have her hand on her heart at that anthem playing in 2007 when Obama didn’t. She believes in American leadership, which Obama seems tepid on. She wants American victory; Obama won’t say he does. > > But back to the issue of this thread, clearly, what Trump is trying to do is get the left to push back against criticizing Radical Islam because some on the left will say that doing so is akin to criticizing non-radical Islam, and using it to win the election. I don’t think Obama believes that a meaningful military victory is possible for us anywhere in the Middle East and neither do I. I hope Hilary realizes it, too, otherwise we’re in for more dead troops with little to show for it. I have no hope that Republicans will ever realize this. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/38 "2015-12-08T14:14:34Z")
Victory? Easy enough to find, wait for morning and follow the smell of napalm. But don’t dilly-dally, after a couple of days or so, another smell altogether more pungent will start to overwhelm that delicate aroma. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/39 "2015-12-08T14:23:10Z")
> [@DerekMichaels00](#): > > Hillary would, but Obama won’t. Hillary flies flags at her rallies, and did have her hand on her heart at that anthem playing in 2007 when Obama didn’t. She believes in American leadership, which Obama seems tepid on. She wants American victory; Obama won’t say he does. … this is a joke, right? ---
**Author:** ![DerekMichaels00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@DerekMichaels00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DerekMichaels00)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614/40 "2015-12-08T17:06:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > … this is a joke, right? no its not. Just look at pictures of her rallies compared with Obama’s. The American flag is much more present at hers than his. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-democrats-risking-another-2004-because-of-the-radical-islamic-terrorism-issue/739614.md?page=3)