Liberal Journalist at THE NEW YORKER Admits Democrats Have NO PLAN FOR ISIS
You know things are bad for the Democrats when a liberal writer at The New Yorker admits that they have no plan to deal with the most dangerous national security threat facing America today.
Ryan Lizza is just saying what many of us already know:
None of the Democrats Has a Strategy for ISIS
Bernie Sanders was a sixties radical who applied for conscientious-objector status during the Vietnam War, because he was, according to a statement from his campaign spokesman earlier this year, “a pacifist.”
So on Saturday night, at the Democratic debate, in Des Moines, Iowa, it was jarring to hear Sanders, the first Presidential candidate to speak before a national audience in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, declare forthrightly, “Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.”
If you tuned into the event still dumbstruck by the events in France but hoping the debate would offer some clarity about how the United States should respond, Sanders’s unambiguous call for a military defeat of ISIS was promising. Clearly he had thought about this vexing issue and came to the Iowa debate prepared to explain his strategy.
But in the next breath, he revealed he actually had no plan…
Next up was Hillary Clinton, and she, too, promised to explain how she would deal with ISIS. “I will be laying out, in detail, what I think we need to do with our friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere to do a better job of coördinating efforts against the scourge of terrorism,” she said. “Our country deserves no less, because all of the other issues we want to deal with depend upon us being secure and strong.”
You can’t get any more direct than that: she would be “laying out in detail” the whole plan. Shortly after, she added a Sanderseque promise that ISIS “cannot be contained, it must be defeated,” which would be a notable shift from simply preventing ISIS’s expansion to eradicating it. But after two hours of debate, the Clinton plan never came.
The same was true of Martin O’Malley. He argued that ISIS represented “the new sort of challenge, the new sort of threat that does, in fact, require new thinking, fresh approaches and new leadership,” and yet he never told us exactly what that new thinking and those fresh approaches would be.
It’s difficult to form a strategy for ISIS when you can’t even say the words “radical Islam.”