The Patriot Post® · Who's Really Doing the Islamic State Recruiting?

Hillary Clinton is attempting to push the perception that she has the national security chops to protect America from the Islamic State. The first prong in that strategy: Attack … Donald Trump.

During Saturday’s Democrat debate, Clinton claimed that Trump was the prime recruiting tool for the Islamic terrorist “caliphate” because he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country. Clinton’s assertion is ridiculous, even in the relatively logic-free environment of a presidential campaign. Of all the reasons that radical Muslims have for declaring war on America — our Liberty, our liberal society, American strength in the world, we’re “infidels” — the off-the-cuff remarks of a presidential candidate hardly rank at the top of the list.

Terrorism experts have not found any instances of Trump actually being used in Islamic State propaganda, and Clinton’s campaign refused to back up her claims with any real evidence. Hillary’s supporters long ago accepted her words as gospel; it is true because she says so.

Trump, who has done more than his fair share of mudslinging this year, demanded Clinton apologize. Predictably, Clinton’s camp resolutely refused, and she doubled down on the rhetoric.

This isn’t about what effect Trump is or is not having on ISIL recruitment quotas. What is at issue is Clinton’s fundamental lack of understanding or honesty about the threat facing the U.S., coupled with her apparent disregard for troubling facts that could trip up her coronation as the next president.

Clinton would have us believe that Islamic anger can be stirred by YouTube videos and colorful Trump-isms. These make for convenient sound bites that distract from the fact that the foreign policy malfeasance of Clinton and her former boss Barack Obama are the main reason for the rise and growing threat of the Islamic State.

Clinton, like Obama, refuses to accept the connection that Islam has to the terrorist threat. She maintains that Islam is the Religion of Peace™, and she pushes a view of “showing respect, even for one’s enemies.” Well, at least if those enemies are foreign and not domestic political opponents.

This is reminiscent of other dangerously naïve Clinton moments such as the Russian “reset” button and the aforementioned Benghazi disaster. These sweet words are usually accompanied by attacks on Republicans for fear mongering.

Her so-called plan for defeating ISIL is likewise filled with intellectual immaturity that should be unsettling to any voter with national security on their mind.

For instance, the multi-pronged approach includes “crushing [ISIL] on its own turf” and “[doing] more to keep us safe.” Not very deep thinking. Clinton also calls for doing a better job of sharing intelligence, even though she is on record as opposing greater information sharing between government and the private sector.

Maybe Clinton isn’t putting too much thought into her ISIL strategy because she truly believes her own words about the campaign against the Islamic State: “We now finally are where we need to be.” This was a major slip of the tongue, indicating either that Clinton is deluded into thinking the current campaign against ISIL is actually going well, or she’s lying for political gain. Gee, which one?

Clinton’s campaign claims that her words are being deliberately misconstrued, but how else can you take a statement like that? There really is only one way: Clinton is concerned about ISIL only to the extent that it can make or break her candidacy. Outside of that, Islamic terrorism, like every other issue facing the country, is a means to an end, and that end is putting Hillary Clinton in the White House.