Ever wondered why Hellery Clinton refuses to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism" to describe the things ISIS does, such as the San Bernardino massacre? Donald Trump challenged her to do so during the second debate, but she didn't (and will not) get any closer than "radical jihadists". Why? Because to name the enemy is not politically correct. Might offend those... you know... moderate Muslims (like the Khan family) to whom the Clinton campaign is pandering.
We have a little more insight into their strategy today thanks to Wikileaks. Their latest drop -- you'll find a summary of the highlights from previous releases here -- reveals that some of La Clinton's top aides were highly upset that a Muslim man had been named as one of the shooters in last year's San Bernardino massacre, in which 14 innocent people were killed and 22 injured.
According to e-mails from John Podesta's account, the Clinton campaign chairman suggested it would have been "better if a guy named (Syed Farook) was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter." Mr Podesta was responding to an email chain that began with campaign liaison Matt Ortega sharing a tweet from MSNBC host Chris Hayes reporting the shooter's name as Syed Farook. Campaign spokesperson Karen Kinney responded with, "Damn!"
Mrs Bill Clinton steadfastly refuses to utter the word "Islamic", let alone the phrase "Islamic terrorism". Fox News reports that in a 154-page debate prep book developed two months after the attack (also released by WikiLeaks), her handlers advised Shrillery to call these types of attacks "radical jihadists". As The Donald says, how can you fight an enemy you refuse to recognize.
No comments:
Post a Comment