Video: “We’re fighting a radical religion in Islam,” says Huck’s Iowa campaign manager
posted at 7:55 pm on December 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Nothing gets by Eagle Eye Finkelstein. A dilemma for Huck: Issue the obvious clarification that Vander Plaats meant radical Islam or just sort of … leave it hanging? The Dems will bludgeon him with it in the general, but he can always clarify then. In the meantime, this might earn him some extra votes in the primary.
The Islam/radical Islam distinction might be a simple case of misspeaking but the part about Huckabee allegedly having some unique insight into the war because of his pastoral background is not. Huck’s made that point himself. I’ve always thought Fred, Rudy, and McCain had a pretty solid handle on the nature of the enemy and the stakes involved, but then what do I know? I’m an atheist.
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:
They need to drop the word “Islam” (radical or otherwise) and start using the term “Islamism”. We’re not at war with Islam the religion, but with Islamism, the political-military movement.
flipflop on December 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM
So The High Reverend Huckster has changed his views again, already?
Didn’t he just say a couple of days ago that poverty in the ME was the problem?
It’s getting hard to keep up with that man.
MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Good ‘ole Tucker. What is that supposed to mean, he’s helped by being a pastor? He going to minister to and convert them? Or is he going to act as chaplain for the troops.
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 8:01 PM
What is it supposed to be?
“We’re fighting a radical religion in radical Islam,”
No, that’s tautology.
Probably he should have simplified it…
“We’re fighting
a radical religion inradical Islam,”aunursa on December 19, 2007 at 8:01 PM
It is just as he said it. No clarification needed.
KSgop on December 19, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Yay. I can’t wait for this nut to validate EVERYTHING that the jihadis have been saying and start a true holy war.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 8:08 PM
The religious, political and militaristic aspects of Islam are inseparable. Islam = Islamism = Islamofascism. Any Muslim who claims to embrace only a religion is a hypocrite.
RedWinged Blackbird on December 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
But Islam IS at war with us, all non-muslims, and has been since its beginnings. There is no separation between political, religious, social, economic, or any other aspect of Islam. It is an all encompasing system that governs everything from a Muslims personal hygene to macro economics. Jihad is too deeply imbedded in the Islamic “faith” to say that it isn’t the ideology, it is, no two ways about it.
P. James Moriarty on December 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
What is the distinction exactly in case I missed it? The suffix “-ism” suggests a 20th century political ideology yet the adherents of “Islamism” (Bin Laden for one) tend to quote pre-modern sources (”of which I dare not speculate”, quoth Hitchens). Did this political-military movement originate in 1964 when Yasser Arafat’s Black September group started to hijack aeroplanes and murder US diplomats?
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 8:19 PM
This is retarded… it’s not even a “he misspoke” moment (which usually means that someone slipped and said something stupid, and now want to take it back). He genuinely just screwed up with the wording and didn’t deliver a clear message when trying to say basically “radical religion within Islam”. I’m not fan or defender of Huck, but I think if you take an honest look, the guy is just not good at delivering a message and is stumbling through the whole thing. It’s like Bush saying “you’re workin’ hard to put food on yer family”. He didn’t actually mean that you would eat food off of your family, he just doesn’t always speak that well. That’s all I see here, though it will get blown up in to something else.
RightWinged on December 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM
I don’t support Huckabee. I think his spokesman chose his words carefully to cast the issue as a battle between Islam and Christiandom. But, I don’t give a royal crap about “validating” or not validating ANYTHING a jihadi says or thinks or feels. They don’t enter my calculus. I want them all dead or surrendered. If I have to choose, I’ll take the “nut” Huckabee anyday and screw the sage advice of the jihadis.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 8:25 PM
QFT
RushBaby on December 19, 2007 at 8:27 PM
“The war on terror is obviously a theological war”? Wow, and I already cast my vote for the quote of the year. If this tool is emblematic of the Huckabee surge in Iowa, then we have deeper problems than even I imagined.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Well, he’s absolutely right.
And more politicians need to have the guts to say it, and define what we are facing.
The politically correct BS the nutroots will throw at him is just that. BS.
There is no radical Islam. There is only Islam.
And it’s time to fight the CAIR gestapo, and have someone join Robert Spencer in telling the truth about it.
Hawkins1701 on December 19, 2007 at 8:28 PM
so it is a crusade?
zane on December 19, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Amen!
TESTIFY!!
thejackal on December 19, 2007 at 8:31 PM
He was asked to clarify and then made it clear. Mike Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager believes that we are in a theological war, and Huckabee being a pastor helps him. The implications are staggering.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Haha this cracked me up. Not making fun of you or GWB I just like the way you clarified this issue so sincerely.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 8:33 PM
There’s like 1% of muslims that will publically seperate themselves from the islamists. The Saudis are in total denial as a country. The Turks hate us, Iran would rather die as a nation than co-operate to weed out the terrorists. Maybe declaring the war we’re in for what it really is will expedite the process. We are in a holy war with Islam. The enemy knows that. The enemy and Russia and China and 3/4 orf the rest of the world know that. Maybe it’s time we admit it.
Griz on December 19, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Given the choice between Huckabee and Ron Paul with the rest of the leftists who want to surrender, I’ll take Huck anyday. I’ve grown way too tired of GWB kissing CAIR’s hindside every time they as much as sigh.
Buzzy on December 19, 2007 at 8:42 PM
oh goody you all want all out holy war, well done you all.
i trust all you christians will be mounting your white steeds and marching to the holyland? or will you be busy blogging?
zane on December 19, 2007 at 8:42 PM
The Crusades were defensive actions against centuries of Muslim aggression. The way the Crusades are typically demonised as aggression against Muslim lands is disingenuous in the extreme. They weren’t Muslim lands in the first place but rather Christian lands that became warzones in contention. It would be like describing the liberation of France and Holland as aggression against German lands.
Is the attempt by your co-religionists to subjugate and conquer Western Europe a jihad? Say the jihadists gain control of Britain would an attempt to liberate it from Sharia law constitute a Crusade?
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 8:44 PM
You neglected to answer the question.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 8:46 PM
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 8:44 PM
firstly you will apologise for suggesting i am a jihadist. secondly anyone can parrot robert spencers thesis on the crusades, it doesnt make it true.
thirdly what have you done lately to slay the islamic horde except for maybe spit at a muslim on the street?
zane on December 19, 2007 at 8:46 PM
the links on your blog maybe usefull for people to see
Links
Fjordman
Brussels Journal
EU Referendum
Gates of Vienna
not welcome on LGF anymore aegnes?
zane on December 19, 2007 at 8:48 PM
This is a ‘holy war’ only from the Muslims’ perspective. They are fighting to place the entire world under Sharia law, as commanded by Allah in the Koran. The rest of us – Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheists, etc. – are fighting to prevent that.
RedWinged Blackbird on December 19, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Actually some of us have been fighting since the beginning, numerous times. This is crap. Many people on this site are in denial like most of the country. You are in a war regardless of if you want it or not. They will bring it to you soon enough, I hope you are ready to start defending yourself one day, because there aren’t enough people like me to do it all for you. And when I say “me” that means, police, border guards, military ect ect. Everybody talks about these mysterious Muslims who are all about peace. Where are they? Where? I never see them, they never say anything. Quit putting your heads in the sand. I have dealt with muslims more than I ever wanted to. They will do what they have to to further their cause, even cooperate with the enemy, until they get what they need, and then stick a big giant knife in your back when you turn around. I am not saying we should wage all out war against the muslim population, but dang it, we need to be very careful. I for one don’t believe my heritage and or religion should suffer for their advancement or because our sissy nation is afraid of them, or afraid to stand up for our way of life. Also if you are an athiest, like so many proud athiests here, how could you understand what it means to believe in God, or whatever someone believes in? You don’t. If you are a “former” believer but are now an athiest you have hardened your heart, and have lost your feelings so that does not count either. Sorry it’s in the bible, it’s what I believe, and you can cry, call me names, or call me ignorant but you won’t change my mind. Now I am not endorsing Huck, he’s a flip flopper of the 1st degree, but I can understand that speakers line of thinking. It takes one to know one I think is what he is trying to say. I just believe his wording was poor.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Being a pastor, the new qualification for office. Does being a rabbi count, too?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 19, 2007 at 9:03 PM
You’re not even a troll, you’re an ogre. As a loyal British citizen shouldn’t you be more concerned that Anjem Choudray has vowed to fly the black flag of Islam over Downing Street?
Or as he so succinctly put it “Who says Britain even belongs to the British? The whole world belongs to Allah.” Seeing as many jihadists have already declared all out holy war on non-Muslims is it really immoral to fight back?
If you genuinely disapprove of religious warfare look to your own house first.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 9:04 PM
That is not a bad idea, the hpeople have probably done more good for this world than any one ethnic group.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:07 PM
It should say Jewish people above, guess my preview did not work out so well.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Gator if you can understand the speaker’s line of thinking, please explain this to me:
“His theological training makes him well prepared for the war on terror”
I’ve watched the clip 5 times now and don’t know whether I should feel sorry for a man thrust in front of a TV camera, who got his talking points wrong, or to feel alarmed that people actually think that theological training will help on the war on terror.
I get the enemies motivation here, and I’m all for knocking it on its ass. What I don’t need is a CIC telling me we are doing this because he read it in the Bible.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 9:13 PM
I want every Christian in our country to be first in the draft to fight this holy war before I am called off to duty to fight Huckabee’s Crusade 2.0.
muyoso on December 19, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Very well said and sums it up nicely. I just hope the people with the power in our government will come to fully understand this as well and finally address the issue by casting aside being PC and take the gloves off and prosecute this war the only way a war should be prosecuted before we get sucker punched again!
Liberty or Death on December 19, 2007 at 9:16 PM
I didn’t suggest you were a jihadist. I suggested that some that some of your co-religionists were/are. If you disapprove of them say so or if you don’t feel like it don’t. It’s entirely up to you.
First of all I’ve never spitted on any Muslims or ever advocated doing so. I’ve done nothing to slay anyone ever and would only advocate defensive warfare if survival depended on it.
It doesn’t make it false either. I haven’t read Spencer’s book on the Crusades. My blog has a link to an article by Thomas F. Madden.
I am welcome on LGF. I have a commenter’s account there. I’ll link to whomsoever I please.
I’ve answered all of your questions. You haven’t answered any of mine.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 9:17 PM
I did not say I agree with him, Christians do not have any right to power, I just believe that he thinks that someone who has a deep faith in god could better understand another person who bases their actions on their deep beliefs. Once again, I’m not in total agreeance but I think I understand what he meant.
Now from a Christain point of view I think there is merit in this. Since I do believe in God, and I believe in prayer, I like the idea of my President praying and fighting a spiritual war, vice just a physical war. Not sure If im making any sense, I never was a good evangelical speaker.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:20 PM
I trust every word he said….until after the primaries….first it will be radical Islam…then a fringe element of Islam…then just terrorists right before the election. Islam will be ‘kewl with Huck’ again.
This was for IOWA, now, today.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Well Islam is at war with someone. And not even (ron)Paulie shore can say that Islamic attacks in Chechnya, India, Philipines, Sudan, Thailand, Nigeria, somalia, ect ect.. are all because of US actions in 1953.
The utter cluelessness that it takes to ignore all the other deaths at the hands of Islamic thugs to justify that your too weak to lead the US in a WOT is only more proof of how unfit Ron Paul is.
William Amos on December 19, 2007 at 9:22 PM
They are at theological v. secular war with us.
If we make it theological v. theological, we is all scroomed.
MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 9:22 PM
You do realize that we are not at war with any country right now right? The governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have asked us to stay there. What you seem to be implying is that those governments are not allies but actually enemies. It can get rather confusing in these theological wars, can’t it?
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Military was 73% Christian in ‘01. Seems like you pretty much got what you want already. Do you really need EVERY Christian?
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I don’t think Huckabee will be the nominee anyways, so it’s a moot point. I think this is short term success.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Is this anti-Paul thing reflexive? Who the heck said anything about Ron Paul? I thought we were talking about Huckabee campaign manager in Iowa.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I, or rather the Founding Fathers, beseech you as Freedoms heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, Christians and Jews and Atheists, those who get $400 haircuts and those who get $10 haircuts, those who believe in global warming and those who think it is a hoax, to carry aid promptly to those English men and English women and to destroy that vile Islamic law from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent.
Moreover, The Founding Fathers command it.
- President Robert Spencer
MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 9:32 PM
What worries me is how acceptable that idea is to so many people.
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 9:33 PM
How does one answer such a question?
Is what a crusade? Criticism of Islam? The war in Iraq? The survival of Western Europe? The desire to remain Christian?
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 9:34 PM
War does not need to be declared to be at war. My point is, is that regardless of how many peaceful muslims there appears to be, there are enough extremists to cause us serious harm right here in our own comfy cozy country. If you really want to know what I think, I don’t think it is a religeous war. I think it’s human nature. The rest of the world is Jelous of us and are aligning against us. As we get socially weaker in this country those who are against us plot and plan and one day will bring it crashing down around us. I hope I am not around, because I don’t have a lot of faith in us as a whole. We are too soft. Current generations don’t know what it’s like to actually want or go to bed hungry. Think about it. Everyone always likes to see the big guy go down eventurally because we are all jelous of what they have and we don’t.That’s why we love stories about celebs and big company CEO’s that go down hard. It is no different for the rest of the world. Europe, Asia, South America, they are tired of watching us prosper as they just get by.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:34 PM
The war on terror
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 9:37 PM
I think I got off track on that last one, sorry, I need a vacation. I’m going to rent a movie about puppies and rainbows or something.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:39 PM
As much as I believe Islam is the problem this is not a theological war for us. We should have no interest, whatsoever, of painting white crosses on tank turrets and missle warheads. Serial numbers and maybe a white star is spirit enough for me.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 9:39 PM
And somehow we think of the Democrats with their heads in the sand all through the 1990’s as radical Islam attacked us again and again and again. Take a look at some above and see that the GOP’s problem is that they’re as weak and spineless today as Clinton was then. No, a crusade isn’t required just someone who might still stand up and use the term Islamofascist after CAIR tells him to shut up would be refreshing.
Buzzy on December 19, 2007 at 9:43 PM
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, “moderate” majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for “moderates” to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of unicorn searching.
Any “moderate” Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No “moderate” can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamicagenda.
People whom we call “moderates” are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. “Moderates” will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be ‘moderates’ in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of “moderates”, making them irrelevant.
Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for
unicorns in the forest.
- A_Plague_on_Both_Houses
MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 9:46 PM
How do you equate not believing we are in a theological war with being “weak and spineless”? Apparently I don’t need the same motivation to identify the enemy as you do.
If indeed you believe this is a “theological war” what is your personal endgame?
sweeper on December 19, 2007 at 9:50 PM
We can’t have any Rabbis.
They are even worse than those damn Mormons.
At least Mormons believe in Christ even though they think that he and the Devil are brothers.
MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 9:51 PM
As much as I believe Islam is the problem this is not a theological war for us. We should have no interest, whatsoever, of painting white crosses on tank turrets and missle warheads. Serial numbers and maybe a white star is spirit enough for me.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 9:39 PM
No reason we should. If we could only see past the fact that there is a “religious” component to Islam (and it is only one part of the Islamic whole) it becomes quite simple. We make war against an ideology that insists on making war on us until they cry “uncle”. We made war against the Germans generaly, but the goal was to crush the NAZI ideology. We didn’t wipe it out totaly (Ron Paul is still taking money from them) but now they are no longer capable of waging war against us. I personaly don’t see where the difference is other than the PC theological relitivism that abounds today. It, more than anything else, will get us all killed or subjugated under Muslim overlords.
P. James Moriarty on December 19, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Good post MB4, says it better than I could have.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 9:54 PM
No it is not like the Crusades in any way, shape or form.
aengus on December 19, 2007 at 9:57 PM
We fought WWII with absolutely no thought to collateral damage. The war was fought with the big picture in mind. We are trying to defeat Extremists with one had tied behind our moral backs. They will kill themselves to further a cause, and we worry and fret about waterboarding. In the old testament times the Jews would slaughter every man, woman, child and animal for ones reason. If nothing is left, it can’t grow back. In our “war on terrorism” we pull weeds and they grow back. I’m not advocating the wholesale slaughter of anyone, but therein lies our problem. We think we can fight wars with some sort of total moral compass. It is not possible.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Your words were just fine.
Besides I “cheated” as I borrowed rather heavily from “A_Plague_on_Both_Houses”.
MB4 on December 19, 2007 at 10:01 PM
No argument. My only point is that we should fight this war as what it is, a war against a supremisist ideology. And BTW, it isn’t just the “radicals” who profess, fight, or spread the ideology. My worry is that the way things are shaping up, we will never, with todays political correctness, be willing to fight the war with the ferocity required to win it. It’s like we’re saying to Islam “just don’t attack us and do it to us slowly and we’re yours”. Makes me sick.
P. James Moriarty on December 19, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Just a word about ‘moderate’ Muslims before I call it a night. There are plenty of ‘moderate’ Muslims, but they are not who most Westerners think they are. They are non-militant Islamists. They embrace the Islamic ideal of a global caliphate. They neither endorse nor reject violence as a means of achieving their goal. Those Muslims who categorically reject violence and want to live at peace with the infidel world are liberal Muslims. They are the true small minority of extremists.
RedWinged Blackbird on December 19, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Gotcha, agreed.
gator70 on December 19, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I’m beginning to think that some of these Iowans have a very tenuous connection to the real world!
jeanie on December 19, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Here’s why I say there needs to be a distintion, if for no other reason than for public consumption:
flipflop on December 19, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Interesting. So which is it? “a radical religion in Islam?” or “radical Islamic group?”
It will be interesting to see if CAIR is writing polite letters to Huckabee tonight. Also to see if Huckabee learns anything about domestic jihad after those letters are delivered, or if he will issue an apology to CAIR.
But thanks, Huck, for proving me right. I said here that if Pastor Huck is elected, it will appear to be proof positive to bin Laden and Zawahiri that they were right when they said there is a Christian war on Islam. You think we have problems now?
My own views are known and not part of this story.
Connie on December 20, 2007 at 1:44 AM
Isn’t saying radical Islam like saying wet water?
Hening on December 20, 2007 at 7:58 AM
Haha, it wasn’t sincerity, and it was meant to be funny (in part), but it went to the actual point… that sometimes people just aren’t the greatest speakers and say something they didn’t intend to. It’s a genuine slip, not the usual “I misspoke (read: I’m apologizing to save my political ass)”
RightWinged on December 20, 2007 at 8:05 AM
God has a plan to take care of what we cannot…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zuYCM0g2kc
NRA4Freedom on December 20, 2007 at 10:18 AM
If Huckabee doesn’t refute the statements of Vander Plaats and he gets the nomination, the GOP has no chance of winning the general.
The Huckabee camp is a one trick pony. Religion, Pastor, Christian: tell me something I don’t know Huckabee.
gabriel sutherland on December 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Holy sh**, dude. Huck needs to explain that, and fast.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you. We’re in the ridicule stage. Paul represents a consistent and self-contained constitutional philosophy of freedom. It’s hard to attack on substance, because there aren’t many loose threads to tug on. They have to resort to saying that our founding fathers had a “9/10 mindset” or hype the threat of terrorism as something which could completely destroy our country, and thus justifies abandoning traditional constitutional principles for survival’s sake. Or they lie about Paul’s positions and say he’s an “isolationist,” or that he doesn’t want to tackle terrorism. Hopefully one day they’ll wake up and realize that knot of discontent in their stomach is there because they’ve completely lost sight of the important things in life.
Maybe 8 years of Hillary will jog their memory.
Mark Jaquith on December 20, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Comment pages: