New Jihad Watch: The Candidates speak on jihad
posted at 8:15 am on January 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Robert Spencer takes a look at how the major candidates in both parties address the threat of jihad.
Don’t forget to read Robert’s excellent Blogging the Qur’an series, with new posts arriving each Sunday morning.
Jihad Watch
Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m surprised he didn’t mention McCain or Thompson.
MadisonConservative on January 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Robert, you left out Fred…….Fred gets it, he really gets it…
doriangrey on January 18, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Mittens won his first “gold” the other night, and in his acceptance speech, he mentioned the war against the jihadis…exactly zero times.
I like Spencer and his reports, but indeed why leave out McCain and why leave out Fred? They both know the threat and what’s going on. The weakest guys on the war on the GOP side are Mittens and the Huckster, and I’d have to say that there really isn’t any question the strongest is Rudy.
This sure looked to me like spin for Mittens, and it was weak.
Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Fred should loudly grab a hold of this issue and never let go. He’ll know he’s successful if he pisses off the MSM and gets Jon Stewart giggling like an idiot.
snaggletoothie on January 18, 2008 at 9:13 AM
I am suprised too that he left out Thompson, who does “get it”. McCain gets left out because he has not said much in the debates about Islam or Jihad, McCain always talks about how the surge was “his” idea all along.
I have to say I do not see this as a “spin” for Romney. Spencer was talking about the understanding of the threat, not how to deal with the threat. Sure, Rudy is probably the one who would be the most “tough”, Huckabee apears the most knowledgable of the religion, and Romney seems to be inbetween Rudy and Huck on Islamic Terrorism.
Spencer is right about the Dems, either the truly dont get it or they are playing stupid for the sake of getting the nomination.
Josh on January 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM
So Robert Spencer is just a shill for Romney because he.. mentioned what he said?
And.. “Mittens”?
amkun on January 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Just wait until Mitt gets the nomination. He will be all things to all people moving left, right, and middle of the road. He’s got no core and will govern by the polls.
Sad thing is, he’s the only one besides Fred that I will show up for. He should be no worse than GW. He should be a better communicator though, if he’s got a really good speechwriter.
edgehead on January 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Actually being specific is sure to offend someone you know.
amkun on January 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Actually, this issue isn’t a winner with the dumbed-down American people. Rick Santorum, a hero of mine, campaigned on this issue, but the people of PA didn’t want to hear it & elected that liar Casey to replace him.
jgapinoy on January 18, 2008 at 9:28 AM
This video is silly, and I’m disappointed with Spencer. While internet pundits may feel free to spout off about Islam in general in front of their small and like-minded audiences, candidates for the Presidency can’t go offending a billion people and their leaders before they are even elected just to sound “tough” on terrorism.
Big S on January 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM
I like Spencer, but it is kind of obvious that he left out McVain and Fred.
tickleddragon on January 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM
ditto, he explains it better than any of them when in the sit down interview type settings.
we should also remember the “RoP” rhetoric is going to happen some because of the PR aspect of this, the question is whether they actually beleive that or not, which is a judgement call.
jp on January 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Huckabee has to be careful what he says, because he would be labeled the “Chrsitian leader” starting new crusades by the secular left. of course they’ll probably do that anyway, regardless of what he says/does.
jp on January 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM
The Clinton years were an example of what the Democrats think of Jihad. If the first attack on the WTC was a failure, it just didn’t count. I think the Republicans do “get it”, but it took 9/11 to get them to do something concrete. Islam has been allowed to grow its continuing arsenal, and plant mosques and believers all over the world where it considers Dar al-Harb for the taking, while the local folks try not to offend the invasion.
Europe, much like in WWII, should be where the candidates are looking to see what can happen when PC and ignoring the problem of Islam is left unchecked. Voting in a Dhimmacratic president in the next election is something I’m sure is being offered up in daily prayers along with “Death To America”. It’s the same thing. A picture of a donkey wearing hijab would be fitting.
The learned Robert Spencer using the word “Nope”……funny stuff.
Hening on January 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I’m not so sure that’s true. If it is true, why are his negatives so high?
Rudy’s been villified by the MSM and the conservative blogosphere, so I can understand his. And of course GW has endured the most savage beatings by the press of any President I’ve ever seen–which, frankly, it really turned me off that in his acceptance speech Mittens couldn’t even mention the name of the man who’s fought this war for us for the past six years.
But Mittens has had none of that. There’s something about him that seems artificial and turns people off. To me, he looks and sounds like the guy who would play Reagan in a Holloywood movie that set out to make Reagan look phony and dishonest. There’s something to him that just does not resonate.
Love or hate Bush, not too many people see him as a rudderless panderer.
Typhoon on January 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
This is exactly the problem. I know a 22 year old gay Spaniard and explained to him that I think young gay men should be very anti-immigrant in Europe if they don’t want to be stoned to death under Sharia at age 50. It’s basic self-defense. The Spaniard went on and on about some Arab guy he had had sex with one night. The Arab was allegedly such a decent person. I got a bit rough in attacking such an asinine defense of Islam. My statements are inappropriate here, but you can imagine. He hasn’t talked to me since. No real loss, and maybe I shouldn’t have been so aggressive, but we all run conversational risks when we point out that Islam itself is what is evil.
thuja on January 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Wh…
I…
But…
Gah, screw it. Not even going to address all that wrong with his response.
MadisonConservative on January 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM
So was Reagan wrong to denounce the Soviet Union as an “evil empire?” I’m less worried about potentially offending the sensibilities of those who don’t hold to jihadism as I am about our president being able to have a grasp of the battle we face.
And personally, I don’t care about ticking off those who DO hold to jihadism. They’re already attacking us, so what would be the difference?
Tim on January 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
BTW – Thank you Robert Spencer for your regular commentary. That’s one of the features of Hot Air that keeps me coming back.
(FYI to Bryan – so was VENT! Sure would be nice to see some new ones. Hint, hint.) :)
Tim on January 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
The man who would be president of these United States owes it to the citizens of this nation to be just as specific and devastating as were the men who piloted jets into the World Trade Center, into the Pentagon, and into a smoking hole in a Pennsylvania farmer’s field. The Muhammadans hate America, and it is a matter of cowardice to soften or blur the matter.
As to why the Democrat candidates won’t speak out against the jihadis… well, that’s just a matter of ‘professional courtesy.’
Scribbler on January 18, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Do I still hear the clapping from Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938?
thuja on January 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Um, really? As quick as liberals are to say that jihadis are only a few bad apples in a very big bunch, they’re apparently just as eager to say one good lay and the whole lot of ‘em are saints, eh?
Of course, Europeans have always been well-rehearsed in the whole ostrich dance.
amkun on January 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Mitt Romney takes Ron Paul to school!
Tony737 on January 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I think Spencer’s point was that all of the Republicans except Ron Paul “get it” better than the Dims. If it was spin for anyone, it was spin for the Republican party.
TX Mom on January 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Ya Know?
I hate to sound Like a shill fer Romney but he’s getting savaged here.
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/confronting-radical-jihad
THAT has been on his campaign website almost since he started his campaign.
I have no problem with Fred’s tough stance on Jihadism, and I would have no problem pulling the lever for Fred.
ya’ll are just plain wrong though to “P’shaw” Romney’s stance on it as pandering. He is solid on it.
For ya’ll to attack his victory speech as a format to talk about the Jihad give the guy a break, none of the other candidates (McVain or Huckaschmuck) said anything about it in their victory speeches either. (Not that I would expect them to except maybe McVain)Nor Would I pull the lever for them unless it was in the general only to keep a Dihm from getting their hands on the situation.
anywho ya’ll should read Mitts website like I have read Fred’s before ya just go negative on him.
SECOND LOOK AT MITT AND JIHAD!!!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Are you suggesting that US presidential candidates are campaigning for the votes of a billion Muslims worldwide, nearly all of whom can’t vote, or are you saying that US presidential candidates should sbe campaigning to these people??
Please clarify.
awake on January 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM
An acceptance speech is not the proper time to bring that up — it is a cheerleading event.
Besides, the biggest threat to the US during this election is McCain and Huckabee — we must deal with them before we have any chance to take it to the Jihadists.
EJDolbow on January 18, 2008 at 11:23 AM
When a presidential candidate opens his mouth, people around the world listen. So they have to be careful about what they say, just like the current President is careful about what he says.
mycowardice on January 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM
candidates for the Presidency can’t go offending a billion people and their leaders before they are even elected just to sound “tough” on terrorism.
Big S on January 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Sorry that makes no sense.
MarkB on January 18, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Romney: no qualified Muslims in my cabinet regardless of their skills, because Muslims do not make up enough of the US Population(Muslims 1% US Population per CIA)
However Mormons at a whopping 2%(per CIA) SHOULD have 2 out of 3 branches of Government The Executive Branch(Mitt Romney IF elected) and the Senate(Harry Reid yep he’s a Mormon too)
———-
1% or 2%.. Mitt’s argument about percentage of the population was kind of lame..
BTW, I’m NOT Muslim i’m Baptist…
Romney’s comments just sounded like discrimination to me, putting quotas onto people.. etc. I don’t like that kind of stuff..
Chakra Hammer on January 18, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Because, as much as the liberals have made a joke of it, diplomacy is still important and calling the religion of the oil-producing world a death cult in plain terms ain’t kosher. Especially when we’re held hostage by our environmentalists.
amkun on January 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM
And this is why we need to elect Fred Thompson to POTUS.
Most Enviros are Hippies (or wanna-be hippies).
Fred Thompson will PUNCH the Hippies.
Nuff said.
;)
wearyman on January 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM
As previous comments have indicated, there is surprise that Fred Thompson was not featured. Maybe a supplement should be done Robert! He’s addressed it repeatedly, consistently and yes, he does get it. I know the time on these presentations is short, but I feel he is one that should have been featured. He ISN’T afraid to name the enemy.
mimi1220 on January 18, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Indeed, your cowardice is showing as is your affliction with the PC mindset.
Since when is speaking the truth subject to self-censoring?
awake on January 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM
There, I fixed that right up for you.
awake on January 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I heard the same moaning and groaning from Michael Medved the other day. It was a woo hoo speech to rally Mitt’s Michigan supporters. It wasn’t a policy position paper for x sakes.
What a ludicrous thing to base one’s support (or not) of a candidate on.
As for why Fred was not mentioned, you’ll have to ask Robert Spencer.
Buy Danish on January 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM
This sounds like canned anti-Mitt spin to me. And it definitely has no bearing on the topic.
Raw cynicism, anyone?
Slap slap slap. But you will show up fer sure, right?
argos on January 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Fred was not mentioned because, let’s face it, he has not shown himself to be a viable candidate, and Spencer has limited space to get his point across.
On the other hand, Fred has definitely kicked it into a higher gear in SC, and I’m hoping he does well there, as I believe he would be hell on Islamic deathculters.
argos on January 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM
I think Fred wasnt mentioned as he didnt address Islam during the debates only Iran.
William Amos on January 18, 2008 at 2:12 PM
BP/AP – ther’s no mechanism whereby HA acolytes can alert you to insanely awesome smackdowns, such as this one by Col. Ralph Peters in the NYPost on the occasion of the NYT’s latest slander of our returned-from-combat troops as murderous zombies, so I am dropping a hyperlink to the article in this comment, hoping that folks will follow it and be amazed.
Col. Peters guts the NYT like a fish.
Mike D. on January 18, 2008 at 2:22 PM
It’s going to be really nice to listen to a President who can use words like encompasses and caliphate without furrowing his brow and then smiling when he pronounces it correctly. I voted for W, but he is painful to watch sometimes. Your sitting there watching his press conference, and hoping that he can say something to inspire you and the nation and it just doesn’t happen. Romney’s speech on faith in America was the closest thing to an inspiring leader I’ve seen since Newt Gingrich’s Republican revolution of 1994!
joncoltonis on January 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM
No Fred!, no watch.
omnipotent on January 18, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Great vid Robert, as always.
I think globalism has created a huge hole in our national security and our freedom of expression. How can the leader of the free world (or LOTFW wannabe) confront Islam when we’re practically on life support from numerous Islamic oil producing nations? I don’t believe he can and that just might be the death of us as a nation.
Buzzy on January 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Thanks Robert. Excellent as always. Reading the comments, I think you may have left out a candidate or two! But you point is well taken. The democraps, through inaction, were part of the problem all through the Klinton years…
Commenter Tim has a point, it’s been awhile since we enjoyed a “classic Vent”… I sure hope the Vent “writers” are not on strike!
Zorro on January 18, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Not all truth need be told. Particularly when it comes to matters affecting diplomacy…
mycowardice on January 18, 2008 at 6:28 PM
No, I’m just saying that we’ve got to be careful not to go calling all Muslims potential terrorists, because there are those who we will have to work with and bring to our side in order to win the war on terror. I think RG takes a good position (here, here, here, and here).
Big S on January 18, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Unfortunately it is precisely this type of politically correct thinking that has made the US look weak and has emboldened our enemies the Islamo-fascists.
We need a leader that will throw out the PC garbage where it belongs during a war and that’s in the trash bin! We need someone that cares more about protecting the citizens of the US and our republic and less about the polls, their image, or their re-election chances!
Absolutely none of the demo-craps would fit that bill because not only do the de-morons not don’t get it, they don’t even believe there is a WOT, that and they are more concerned with their own good then the good of our republic!
In my opinion the only candidates up to the task are Rudy, Fred!, or McCain as they will discard the PC crap and do what must be done!
I realize many here are concerned with the preservation of conservatism, so am I but I think what is getting lost in our fight against secular-progressives and the preservation of conservative values is the fact that if we do not begin to take this war seriously and stop Islamo-fascism conservative values will become a moot point.
Remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs principal; survival needs always come first.
Liberty or Death on January 18, 2008 at 7:38 PM
and the Demacrats are afraid to call them by name. Let’s see, what did eight years of doing that get us? Oh ya……..NINE-ELEVEN!!!!!!!!
oakpack on January 18, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Do they even know the name?
Since 911 we have been told to keep an eye open but don’t stare and please keep shopping.
BL@KBIRD on January 18, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Jihadism is, I think it’s fair to say, a rather large issue with Spencer. If he thought Romney were weak on the matter, why would he spin for him? What’s the motive?
Tzetzes on January 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Thanks Robert, telling like it really is.
2theright on January 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Why, thats exactly what they are. As Robert Spencer points out not only in this video, but in his Blogging the Qu’ran series. Jihad is a fundamental doctrine in Islam. In other words the concept of Jihad cannot be removed from Islam. Furthermore another of Islams fundamental doctrines is the worldwide establishment of a Islamic Caliphate. In other words, yes all Muslims are potential jihadist/terrorists the sooner the west wakes up to this the sooner it can defend itself effectively against it.
doriangrey on January 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Political Islam has a complete doctrine of who to love and who to hate. Hate is a formal aspect of Islam.
RushBaby on January 19, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Good point and I can’t claim to have the answer. It’s just the way it looked to me. Love him or not for whatever other reasons, the guy in the race who speaks most often and most forcefully on the issue is Rudy. I’d give second to Fred, third to McCain, and I’d put Romney fourth.
And fourth because while it’s true he knows all the words, I just get no feeling he knows the music.
And my take is that Spencer downplayed everyone else and oversold Mitt.
If that’s so, I have no idea why. For that you’d have to ask Spencer.
Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Great article. I loved the tag line at the end.
That NYT article is very relevant to the subject of Spencer’s video because it’s basically the same argument many use to defend Islam and Muslims. The NYT tried to lump all veterans together, and they tried to use the statistics of a few to sully the characters of all. That’s what Muslims and their defender claim is done to all Muslims when the fact of Islamic terrorism is focused on. “You can’t judge a billion people by the actions of a few”.
But it’s really not the same thing at all. Spencer and others use the term “Jihadi” as a way to get around using the term “Muslim”. They have to do this because nobody wants to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. While it is true that all Muslims are not terrorists, it’s also true that a terrorist isn’t a terrorist until he or she acts on their beliefs. All Muslims believe the same thing the terrorists do. They may not agree with the details, or the tactics, but they all believe in the goals. They can’t call themselves Muslims if they don’t.
What is really maddening is that the people who claim you can’t blame all Muslims for the actions of a few have no problem claiming all Americans are valid targets and that all our military veterans are lunatic ticking time bombs. They don’t understand the difference and they never will.
Jaynie59 on January 19, 2008 at 6:46 PM
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/01/notepads-of-sha.html
Priceless.
Jaynie59 on January 19, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Medved is an interesting case. He calls himself a conservative Jew, but he’s just as beholden to the myth of the moderate Muslim, and as blind to the true nature and threat of Jihad, as any Democrat.
aynrandgirl on January 21, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Because that’s not true, any sucking up to the Saudis to the contrary. We only get ~10% or so of our oil from the ME. Losing ME oil would be hard on the wallet, but it wouldn’t be catastrophic. Europe gets a lot more oil from thugs (Russia, Middle East) than we do, they’re in a much worse bind.
aynrandgirl on January 21, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Comment pages: