Hillary Clinton delivered a speech today to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. She discussed terrorism extensively, taking time (like her boss) to ridicule Republicans for referring to radical Islam:
Reading her speech at a brisk clip from a teleprompter at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, she slowed momentarily to mock three words – “radical Islamic terrorism” – that Republicans often accuse President Barack Obama of purposefully avoiding. …
Blaming “radical Islamic terrorism” for vicious attacks of the sort that killed 129 people last Friday in Paris, she said, “is not just a distraction.”
Affiliating them with a religion, Clinton insisted, “gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve and it actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.”
On the contrary, Clinton insisted, Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Here it is:
Hillary’s staff thought this was such a brilliant line that they tweeted it:
"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 19, 2015
Since Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” is forbidden. Instead, Hillary referred repeatedly to “radical jihadism” as the enemy we must defeat. This represents some weird sort of confusion on her part. Does she think that jihadists are not Muslims, and that jihad has nothing to do with Islam? Is it her impression that jihad is an ecumenical concept, so that jihadist Hindus and Buddhists carry out acts of terrorism?
None of this makes any sense, but maybe it isn’t intended to. The real reason you can’t say “radical Islamic terrorism” is that lots of Republicans use that phrase. What she is really saying is: I’m not one of those horrible Republicans! I don’t know what will happen if someone tells her that Republicans talk about jihadists, too.