Is it true that anti-Islamic, or insufficiently pro-Islamic, rhetoric from American politicians encourages terrorism? The big picture gives plenty of reasons to doubt it. Such rhetoric was not a major feature of U.S. politics during Bill Clinton’s time in the White House, and that didn’t stop Islamic terrorists from attacking the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole, among others.
...The only message [Hillary and her allies] are delivering to Americans is the message intended for the enemy, or for the population from which the enemy draws recruits. Consider Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that “Muslims . . . have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” One can imagine—although we are skeptical—that that’s a useful thing to say for the purpose of propaganda aimed at demoralizing terrorists and appealing to nonterrorist Muslims. But from the standpoint of an American voter who takes the statement at face value, it is flatly false—a bold-faced lie, really, since Mrs. Clinton obviously knows it is false.
By contrast, what Trump has to say on this subject is a rough approximation of the truth. We’re uneasy with the roughness, but too many in the political class fail to appreciate the importance of the truth.
arty
