The day after the terror attacks in Paris, Hillary Clinton refused to use the term “radical Islam.” Clinton’s refusal came tonight at a Democratic presidential primary debate in Des Moines, Iowa:
Dickerson: “Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists. Marco Rubio, also running for president, said this attack showed the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization “radical Islam?”
Clinton: “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam. I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims. I think we’re at war with jihadists who have…”
Dickerson: “Just to interrupt. He didn’t say all Muslims. He said ‘radical Islam.'”
Clinton: “I think you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists, but I think it’s not particularly helpful to make the case that senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we’ve got to reach out to Muslim countries. We’ve got to have them be part of our coalition. If they hear people running for president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam, that was one of the real contributions, despite all the other problems, that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a Mosque in Washington, we are not at war with Islam or Muslims. We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression. And, yes, we are at war with those people. But I don’t want us to be painting with too broad a brush.”
Dickerson: “The reason I ask is you gave a speech at Georgetown university in which you said it was important to show, quote, ‘Respect, even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand and in so far as psychologically possible empathize with their perspective and point of view.’ Can you explain what you mean in the context of this kind of barbarism?”
Clinton: “I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value we know and respect. Historically, it is important to try to understand your adversary in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react. I plead that it’s very difficult when you deal with ISIS and organizations like that whose behavior is so barbaric and so vicious that it doesn’t seem to have any purpose other than lust for killing and power and that’s very difficult to put ourselves in the other’s shoes.”
