Hillary Clinton: No War On Islamic State Over a Few ‘Radicals,’ but All-Out War on Guns Over a Few Criminals

During the December 6 airing of This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton refused to declare war on ISIS over the actions of a few “radicals,” but she is full steam ahead with her war on the Second Amendment resulting from the behavior of a few criminals.

Stephanopoulos asked pointedly, “Is it time to declare war on ISIS?”

Clinton responded by saying, “We are definitely in conflict with ISIS,” but that declaring war is a step too far.

Stephanopoulos followed up, “Why not declare war?” and “What are you concerned about in the declaration of war?”

Clinton responded that to “declare war is a very legal term” and suggested “we already have the authority we need to go after ISIS or any international terrorist network, including al Qaeda and anybody else in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),” which was passed in the wake of September 11, 2001.

But Stephanopoulos would not let go. He said, “You’ve also been reluctant to say we’re fighting radical Islam. And I wonder why not. Isn’t it a mistake not to say it plain, that the violence is being pushed by radical elements in that faith?”

Clinton responded by almost answering the question–she admitted the existence of “radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions,” but she still would not support war against “radical Islam.”

So Stephanopoulos kept at it, asking “What’s the problem with radical Islam?” and asking why Clinton can’t saying we’re fight radical Islam “even though the qualifier ‘radical’ is there?”

Clinton finally gave up the goods:

No, because, look, that — you know enough about religion, you’ve studied it. And there are radicals, people who believe all kinds of things in every religion in the world.

I don’t want to do that because, number one, it doesn’t do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful people.

Number two, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying we’re in a war against the West. You must join us. If you are a Muslim, you must join us.

No. If you’re a law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim, you need to be with us against those who are distorting Islam.

Notice that Clinton is bending over backward to be sure she does not paint all Muslims with a broad brush, even to the point of refusing to say “we’re fighting against radical Islam” in the wake of San Bernardino–not to mention Chattanooga, Garland Texas, the 2009 Fort Hood attack, and 9/11, among others.

But when Stephanopoulos asked Clinton about gun control, she pointed back to the November 27 high profile shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood and the October 1 mass shooting at Umpqua Community College (UCC), then called for “comprehensive background checks,” for adding the no-fly list to the background checks, for closing the gun show loophole, for new regulations on online gun sales, and for holding “gun sellers” liable for the misuse of the products they sell legally.

No effort was made to differentiate between Robert Lewis Dear (CO Springs gunman), Chris Harper Mercer (UCC gunman), and the more than 100 million law-abiding gun owners in the US who have never used their guns for criminal purposes and never will. Clinton simply does not afford gun owners the same benefit of the doubt that she affords to radical Islam.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

 


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.