(JNi.media) At the Democratic presidential debate Saturday night, the leading presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, showed a troubling ambivalence regarding the identity of, arguably, the most dangerous people threatening civilization today. CBS News moderator John Dickerson phrased it this way: “Marco Rubio, also running for president, said … the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?” Her answer was articulated perfectly, so that even a Clinton would have difficulty walking away from it at some future point. It was the kind of answer team Hillary must have worked on since the first news had come in about the terrorist massacres in Paris. Hillary answered: “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.”
On the face of it, Clinton’s answer was identical to Senator Rubio’s, except she substituted the term “radical Islam” for “jihadists.” What followed was a discussion of language that could determine the future of the world. Dickerson said, “Just to interrupt, he didn’t say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don’t—”
Hillary responded: “I think that you can— you can talk about Islamists who— clearly are also jihadists. But I think it’s— it— it’s not particularly helpful to make the case that— Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with that we’ve gotta’ reach out to Muslim countries. We’ve gotta’ 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 … despite all the other problems that George W. Bush made after 9/11.. 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 that I don’t want us to be painting with too brand a brush.”
To summarize, the problem is not in defining who the bad Muslims are, the problem is in doing it while not alienating the good Muslims.
Huma Abedin is one such good Muslim. She is disgraced former NY Congressman Anthony Weiner’s wife, and she is also a major candidate for the post of Chief of Staff or something on that order in the Clinton White House, should Hillary win next November. Abedin has been a long-time aide to Mrs. Clinton, and served as her Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department (making $490,000 a year). Abedin serves as vice chairwoman of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for President. John Podesta, who served as President Bill Clinton’s COS is the campaign chairman.
Hillary Clinton has been described Huma Abedin’s other mother. In 2010, when Abedin married Weiner, Hillary said: “I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma.” And during a trip Clinton and Huma made to Saudi Arabia, Huma’s actual mother said, “Hillary, you have spent more time with my daughter than I have in the past 15 years. I’m jealous of you!”
Abedin’s father, Syed Zainul Abedin, was Indian, and her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is Pakistani. Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. At the age of two, she moved with her family to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where she was raised and lived until returning to the United States for college. It is safe to say that she spent her formative years deeply mired in an Islamist environment, and a Saudi one at that.