Hillary suddenly decides the phrase 'radical Islamism' is 'helpful'

You may recall that, in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, Hillary Clinton famously said that using terms like “radical Islam” was “not particularly helpful.” Despite radical Islamists killing 130 people at the Bataclan, Hillary apparently felt that acknowledging the ideology of the killers was a bridge too far. She made basically the same argument after the San Bernardino shootings, claiming that such language would spawn a “clash of civilizations." Yesterday, like all liberals, she did her best to once again tiptoe around it - instead directing her focus toward her crusade to gut the 2nd Amendment.

---

Within a few hours, she'd issued a statement that managed to call the massacre an 'act of terror,' but failed to identify the ideology responsible. Instead, she politicized the horror by reiterating her desire for a new "assault weapons" ban. Her statement read, in part:

Finally, we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets. This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.

First, the term "mass-shooting" has emerged as the standard language progressives use to soft-peddle the terrorism angle.

---

---

Second, "weapons of war" is the left's new gun control boogeyman. Anti-2A talking heads have been using the phrase in a coordinated manner since they took to the airwaves yesterday. Get used to it. You're going to hear it a lot because, like "assault weapon" it sounds scary even though it's absolutely meaningless. "Weapons of war" is another catch-all term that's so incredibly broad that it could reasonably be used to describe anything. After all, knives are weapons of war. More importantly, Hilary was - once again - blaming inanimate objects instead of identifying ideological issues that progressives dare not face. Today however; something has changed, if only just a little. Suddenly, the term “radical Islam” is A-OK, and Hillary is happy to use it. CNN's Chris Cuomo asked her the following:

"One of the criticisms in these situations is that President Obama won’t use the words ‘radical Islamic terror.’ That it seems to be either a fear or a protective instinct about blaming the religion. You are now coming under scrutiny about what you will call this, what this means to leadership. Do you believe that this is radical Islamism and or radical Islamic terror? Will you use those words, and if not, why?”

To which Hillary replied:

“Well, first of all, from my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. And I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. And, you know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing, I’m happy to say either.”

---

---

You'll note that she walks a razors edge there with the phrase "use Islam to justify." This is her way of perpetuating the old "Islamic terrorists aren't really Islamic" canard. It's pathetic, but it's what progressives do. So, suddenly, the woman who ONLY helps herself feels the term "radical Islam" is helpful? What could possibly have changed? The answer is obvious. Hillary's attitudes and agendas certainly haven't been altered, but her position in the presidential race has. She's a damaged candidate who couldn't put away Bernie Sanders and is struggling against Trump, despite her supposed foreign policy gravitas. Yesterday, Trump called out her ongoing reticence to name Islam and he's obviously eager to launch a double-barreled assault on her record of failure. Today, she decided she had to get out in front on this. Don't allow yourself to believe - not for a second - that she's had some sort of change of heart. She hasn't. Her "radical Islam" flip flop is an act of political self-preservation, not newfound clarity.

---