Mitt Romney's latest commercial focuses on Islamic extremism, which seems to upset Democrats. Here's the ad:

Here's the DNC response, from their press release:

As part of his multimillion-dollar marketing campaign, smooth talking Mitt Romney today rolled out a new ad, entitled "Jihad," that aims to distract from his complete lack of foreign policy credentials and litany of blunders on international affairs. Unfortunately for Romney, all the ad does is expose his superficial knowledge of the threat facing our country and highlight the fact that a Romney presidency would offer four more years of President Bush's failed foreign policy.

In the ad, Romney completely ignores the number one foreign policy issue in this campaign: the war in Iraq. Worse, Romney reiterates his misleading rhetoric about "violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism," declaring that "their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate" and "collapse freedom-loving nations like us." But, as critics have pointed out, Romney's ill-informed and dangerously oversimplified outline of the threat is "misleading" and completely ignores the reality on the ground in Iraq and in the Muslim world, including the facts that Shias and Sunnis are "fighting a civil war in Iraq" and many of the groups Romney typically cites "have not targeted the United States."

Read the full release at the link provided. Of course, Romney didn't even mention Iraq. Thanks to Gateway Pundit, who notes:

How long are democrats going to get away with that nonsense about a civil war in Iraq?
And, to refresh a few memories...
Here are a few quotes by Al-Qaeda members from CI Centre that democrats are hoping you forget.

Read the rest at the link preceding. Odd that Democrats would get so upset about an ad focusing on jihad which doesn't even mention Iraq. Aren't they always saying Iraq is a distraction from the real War on Terror? Except, of course, when they are suggesting we shouldn't use words like "war" in this respect - provocative and inflammatory, don't you know - and that we should entrust the "struggle" - no, still too harsh, isn't it? - or the "conflict" - nope, that could be mistaken for a warlike phrase, too - how about the "discussion" with Islamic extremists?

Of course, "extremist" is such a polarizing word, except when used against conservatives of course, perhaps we should just call them "brothers" or something?

This is precisely why Democrats should not be entrusted with our national security. They believe peace with the jihadis is just a harmonic convergence away . . .