• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Whenever you search in PBworks, Dokkio Sidebar (from the makers of PBworks) will run the same search in your Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Gmail, and Slack. Now you can find what you're looking for wherever it lives. Try Dokkio Sidebar for free.


You can notice that you do not see anyone saying 'Radical Russian'

Page history last edited by CK 2 months, 2 weeks ago

When Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) was first elected to Congress in 2012 amid an ocean of positive press, the Iraq War veteran seemed like a sure thing for a 2020 presidential run. But her 2020 campaign has, so far, been a nearly complete nonstarter — averaging under 1 percent in national polls.

That’s because the onetime progressive star has alienated many of her early supporters over her conservative stances on Islam and foreign wars.

Gabbard initially excited the left because she was an outspoken economic progressive and a veteran who objected to American intervention abroad. She was also the first Hindu member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi called her an “emerging star”; MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow predicted she was “on the fast track to being very famous.”

But in the following years, Gabbard staked out foreign policy positions that shocked her allies. She joined Republicans in demanding that President Obama use the term “radical Islam.” She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. She dubbed herself a “hawk” on terrorism. Reporters documented worrying ties to anti-LGBTQ groups — including one run by her father — and anti-Muslim Hindu nationalists.


At one point, Gold Star mother Tina Houchins asked President Obama why he refuses to use the term "radical Islamic terrorist" to describe the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that have organized attacks against Americans.

"The truth of this matter is that this is an issue that has been sort of manufactured," Obama said.

Several political opponents, including Republican nominee Donald Trump, have criticized Obama for not using the term radical Islamic terrorism, and have said it indicates the president is soft on terrorism.


It didn’t take long for the massacre in Orlando to become politicized. Hours after the news broke on Sunday, President Obama addressed the nation and called the mass shooting “an act of terror.” He did not use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” however, prompting Donald Trump to tweet that the president “should immediately resign in disgrace.”

On NBC’s Today show on Monday, Hillary Clinton took a different tack. Referring to the Orlando massacre, she said “…we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering people. We have to stop them and we will. We have to defeat radical jihadist terrorism, and we will.” She added that “…radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I’m happy to say either, but that’s not the point.”

Simply using a phrase the president rejects made Clinton’s TV appearance a news item in Politico. And Donald Trump was thrilled, saying she “broke” after he criticized her for not using the term.


And yet Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc. are NOT out there demanding politicians say "Radical Russian", "Radical Russian Terrorist", or some other variation of that.

Why is that?


You can notice that you do not see anyone saying 'Radical Russian' (tulsi-afraid-to-say-radical-russian.blogspot.com)


Mirrored at the Nerve Center as "Radical".


Categories: Across time, Class disparities, Double standards, Hypocrisy, NOT, Selective outrage, Serious consequences

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.