Palin doesn't know if abortion clinic bombers are terrorists

I can’t believe she couldn’t get this answer right. It seems pretty easy to me.

Of all the things that McCain did to gain my vote, he turned around and chose her as his running mate. Of course I can’t vote for him now…

Jesus, she is a stupid politician.

Here’s the interview with her full comments, not clipped as in your cite, where she adds that whether or not it’s terrorism it’s unacceptable and not to be condoned, and that it wouldn’t occur on her administration’s watch–and, in clarifying, that anyone who would harm innocent citizens is a terrorist. Of course, that’s not as good a sound bite in terms of demonizing her.

I’m not at all surprised by Palin’s answer. What was she going to say? Her bread is buttered by the rabid anti-abortionist base of the GOP and she knows it. By saying she doesn’t know if she’d call abortion clinic bombers terrorists, in her mind, she was striking a very generous and fair tone. You could almost see the rusty cogs spinning behind her vapid smile as Brian Williams finished asking the question.

By the way, could John McCain look any more uncomfortable in that interview?

But she kinda looks like Tina Fey! And we actually get to see both sides of her face!

I agree the site I linked to is biased… no doubt.

Just so we’re clear though…

She believes it’s wrong, and condemns the act. She doesn’t want to classify the act of doing it as “terrorism”. Would you agree that is a fair assessment?

What exactly is the difference between “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers and an abortion clinic bomber?


One really loves America and the other doesn’t?

Well, nor did she say it wasn’t terrorism either (no extra charge for the double negative). But I’ll concede she’s trying not to antagonize a part of the base. That said, again, I think her full response is a bit more nuanced than what can be summarized by a statement like, “Palin doesn’t know if abortion clinic bombers are terrorists.” Even if that sentiment, plucked out of context, is a direct quote, her full response makes her position a bit more clear, and she certainly ain’t saying she’s a fan of such activity–in fact, quite the opposite. The interview was clipped in the cite you provided for a reason.

How 'bout if we stipulate that Sarah Palin doesn’t know anything, and list the exceptions to that rule as they come up? That may be easier.


Anyone who would bomb a national monument or a draft induction center to protest the deaths of thousands of young men in an unpopular war is obviously an Anti-American terrorist.

Whereas a right-thinking patriot seeking to save the lives of countless unborn children who bombs a doctor’s office is an undeniably Pro-American terrorist hero.

I’m surprised you even had to ask.

ps - :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Or, rather, “It’s only because it’s a cause I agree with,” then she can’t agree if it’s terrorism or not. That’s only a step away from declaring them “freedom fighters”, as the contras of the 1980s were labelled.

BTW, Rudolph hurt a HELL of a lot more people than Ayers ever did.

Part of the act is to put health care workers into fear of working at an abortion clinic, so yes, it is terrorism. It is also killing, which is murder. Gov. Palin seemed to not mention that it was criminal. Saying wrong and bad just isn’t good enough. It’s wrong and bad to leave leave your pregnant teenage daughter home alone to get drunk.

Not a whole lot. IIRC Ayers never killed anyone, but it easily could have happened.

That list would be shorter than the list of canine chess champions in the USA.

Yeah it seems like the distinction in her mind is that a “terrorist” is someone whose actions are directed against the government. That seems like a stupid definition to me. Terrorist should just mean anyone who intends to cause terror.

She didn’t say it wasn’t terrorism?


She was trying not to antagonize abortion clinic bombers?

Her full statement wasn’t “more nuanced”, it went on to, as Sarah is wont to do, to be more idiotic rambling without answering the question.


WILLIAMS: Are we changing–it’s been said that to gives it a vaguely post-9/11 hint, using that word that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the '60s terrorists in–under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition, Governor?

Gov. PALIN: There’s no question that Bill Ayers, via his own admittance, was one who sought to destroy our US capital and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that it would be unacceptable to–I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there, but it’s unacceptable, and it would not be condoned, of course, on our watch. But I don’t know–if what you’re asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist, I don’t regret characterizing him as that.

WILLIAMS: No, I’m just asking what other categories you would put in there, abortion clinic bombers, protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails were thrown, people died?

Gov. PALIN: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to campaign, to destroy our United States capital and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.

WILLIAMS: Senator McCain, the head of your campaign…

Senator JOHN McCAIN: Let me–let just mention one thing in addition to that. It’s not the unrepentant terrorist who stayed on the run from and said, as short time ago as 9/11, that they wished they’d have bombed more.

Gov. PALIN: More.

Sen. McCAIN: His wife was on the top 10 FBI most wanted list. It’s the relationship with Mr. Ayers which Senator Obama has not been forthcoming. That’s what Senator Clinton said in their debates. That’s what I say.

Read the transcript. She doesn’t answer his question, and instead just repeats the same crap that Ayers is a terrorist. The only thing she comes close to saying is that someone who “would seek to campaign, to destroy our United States capital and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.” She’s not saying anyone who would seek to destroy American lives is a terrorist, only those who would bomb the capital AND the pentagon AND destroy innocent lives. Not one damn thing about abortion clinic bombers.

She did exactly what she always does. Dodge the question, spout talking points, and try to attack Obama while doing it.

Why not? Has he changed his concepts for governing? Do you suddenly agree with the Democrats because she is unpleasant?

THAT. Was funny.