Even the Democrats who said we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place said we should be concentrating on Afghanistan. Message: we’ll fight, we’ll just fight the real enemy.
And now we’ve seen how well they kept that promise.
Are Democrats Risking Another 2004 because of the “Radical Islamic terrorism” issue? I interpret the QP question to mean will it be a problem Democrats are unable to say the words of “Radical Islamic terrorism” together without contortions.
In a tight race November of 2016, I am thinking that it could make a difference.
There is a problem now of “radicals” and “terrorists” who happen to be of the “Islamic” faith pulling off mass killings. If this becomes more frequent, as I suspect it will, then the ones who vote could say those who are unable to say “Radical Islam terrorism” would be unqualified to fight against it.
Myself I find the issue with dems unable to say those words together baffling.
Interesting adaher. To my sense much of went wrong before would have been avoided by the U.S. not rushing in to do it mostly with US ground troops.
Fighting the real enemy does not, to my mind, mean doing stupid things that cause at least as much harm as good, if not more. We have recently been there done that, at the cost of thousands of American lives, many many more permanently disabled, billions and billions of dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed and maimed, contributing to radicalizing many more, contributing to the rise of ISIS … Sometimes the best response when a hammer does not work is not “use a bigger hammer” even if that is the first thought we may all have … it is to choose something else from the toolbox.
I thought satire was allowed – my posts were an attempt to satirize the very silly idea that flag prominence in political appearances have anything to do with patriotism; that the number of A’s in one’s name is just as valid a measure of a candidate’s patriotism as the prominence of the flags.
In what way does the use of those words together advance the fight against terrorism?
See, here’s where you’re wrong. If you said we should take out a safe haven for terrorists 14 year ago that means you’re committed to troops on the ground in different countries forever. Stupid libs!
You are incorrect. This issue has zero traction outside the far right, who are all going to vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of how many times Clinton and/or Obama say “radical Islamic terrorism.”
Were you equally baffled by the Bush administration’s refusal to say these words together?
I wouldn’t respect anyone who was my personal phrase-monkey anyway. In addition “well, he’s only saying that NOW to make us think he cares: I really hate his DISHONESTY and PANDERING amirite?”
Right. This is just an endless parade of Lucys demanding that Charlie Brown kick the ball then taking it away.
Thing was no one every questioned Bush’s “toughness” on Islamic-inspired terrorism. Obama has allowed people to question his, because of both his rhetoric and maltreatment of Israel, who fights Islamic terrorists and has since the beginning. Look at Obama’s approvals by issue, which are different than overall job approval (not fav) number; on terrorism, they’re piss poor. The GOP has historically been favored for national security, the Dems for economic policy.
No-one questioned Bush’s rhetoric on terrorism. I certainly questioned his toughness, as did anyone else who was paying attention. You don’t remember him saying bin Laden was “not a top priority”?
You’re making my point for me. Obama is getting different treatment for the same policy as Bush. But no, this particular talking point (specifically about the phrase “Radical Islamic Terrorism”) doesn’t have traction among Democrats and moderates. It’s entirely a right-wing thing.
Also, Obama hasn’t “maltreated” Israel. You keep repeating this. You keep being wrong. You keep being corrected.
A policy that could have issued from an utterly amoral realpolitik position. The most ruthless mofo ever born would not provoke more enmity in the Muslim world, it is an awesomely stupid thing to do. Its going full Trump.
I’m confused as to why I do not see you in any threads here arguing against our Republican/conservative members on economic issues. For someone who claims to be a Democrat, you sure seem to support Republican views.
Bush’s supposed “toughness” damaged America hugely and got thousands of patriotic servicemen killed for nothing. He wasn’t tough – he was weak. Bush was very, very weak. Obama is much, much stronger, since he hasn’t damaged America by pointless wars of choice, and didn’t get thousands of great Americans killed. And Obama has not mistreated or maltreated Israel at all – disagreements with Netanyahu are not mistreatment or maltreatment.
Bush’s weakness meant he abandoned efforts at getting Osama Bin Laden, while Obama focused them and got the sonuvabitch.
In fairness, the intelligence operations that led to the location of Bin Laden were underway while Bush was President. I can’t say, and won’t guess, as to whether Bush would have decided to pull the trigger as Obama did. There was a significant chance of failure.
At least in public, Bush claimed that he wasn’t that interested in finding OBL, while Obama said that he would rededicate efforts. It’s possible this was coincidence, but considering Bush’s immense incompetence at so many other aspects of defense and foreign policy, I think it’s likely not.
And then he got so obsessed with making the war seem like it was over that he did nothing to deal with emerging threats and even went to great lengths to spin those threats to the public as minimal. “JV team”.
Democrats are under the illusion that we can end wars by deciding not to fight them. Or by not calling them wars. Both pathologies have been in place since Vietnam, perhaps even Korea(police action).
Whatever the rhetoric and spin (which matters very little compared to actual military action/inaction), not engaging in ground wars of choice is orders of magnitude stronger than doing so. Obama’s strategy and approach is much, much stronger than most of his critics (except for my strategy and approach 
– yes, I’m one of his critics).