It is completely possible she doesn’t understand the difference between AND and OR. Afterall, none of us really understood all the nuanced meanings of IS until President Clinton taught us. 
Yes, seriously. She said, “I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there,” and qualified her answer. But she never said, “abortion clinic bombers are not terrorists.” Really and truly and seriously.
Is everyone seriously suggesting she thinks they are not terrorists? That she condones their activity? Read the transcript. But better yet, I’ll step aside and let the party continue. I sometimes forget that it is a given on this board that she is a partisan idiot incapable of saying anything that isn’t evil. Sorry to interrupt.
That would have required her to answer a question she was directly asked. She didn’t. She simply repeats talking points.
Oh for fucks sake, what is it with you whiny bitches? I gave you the transcript, pointed out what she actually said, and we can actually debate what she said. But you’d rather whine about the board. Fucking pathetic.
Now you made me cry. I’m gonna go watch the Phils. You guys carry on eradicating ignorance, okay?
Same ole, same ole, on the SDMB. Whiny righties blame the board for their inability to debate. Another day, another dodge.
Actually, to address the OP more directly, I can understand that Sarah, or pretty much any elected official, can’t come up with a workable definition of ‘terrorist’.
It is simply because EVERYBODY engaged in war practices terrorism of one form or another, and it is impossible to come up with a definition that excludes all your acts and includes the enemies’ acts.
Back in the late 80’s I was present at a 3 day conference on terrorism at The Wilson Center for International Studies. The group tried and failed to produce a working definition, IMO mainly because State Department representatives were insisting on on a defintion that would include or exclude certain recent acts, that just couldn’t be reconciled.
According to them, the truck bombing against the Marines in Beirut was terrorism. Most of the academics present saw it as a legitimate military act against a military target. At the same time, the SD folks insisted that none of the acts of the Contras in Nicaragua constiruted terrorism, because of course the US doesn’t support terrorism so nothing they were doing could be terrorist acts. Plus, the recent air strikes against Libya couldn’t be terrorist, even though some civilian targets were hit and civilians were killed. It was simply impossible to make up a reasonable definition.
The unreasonable definition is,of course what the state department and every other government uses, but won’t acknowledge. “It is terrorism when we say it’s terrorism, and it’s not when we say it isn’t.”
It is possible that she thinks everyone who “would seek to destroy innocent lives” is a terrorist, but that flies in the face of her earlier comment that “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.” I think what her point is that it only counts as terrorism if the victim is the US. That is the only way (giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she doesn’t think abortion clinic bombers AREN’T terrorists because abortion is wrong) her comments aren’t self-conflicting.
She didn’t say they were terrorist either, and in fact explicitly cast doubt on whether that was the appropriate term to use for abortion clinic bombers. So while I have no doubt she thinks these people are criminals, I have serious doubts whether she thinks they are terrorists.
I agree that “Palin doesn’t know if abortion clinic bombers are terrorists” is a rather gross mischaracterization.
Of course she knows! Palin is simply too chickenshit to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists.
I don’t think she’d be getting nearly this much flack over this if the McCain campaign hadn’t played up the whole “Obama pals around with terrorists!” tactic. They’re only getting a taste of their own medicine.
No, she’s not too chickenshit. She just knows what the word “terrorist” popularly means.
Read **Boyo Jim’s **post at #26. “Terrorist” isn’t a label that is or can be applied by reference to objective acts. If you try to define it that way, you cannot get agreement upon a definition. “Terrorist” is a perjorative used about someone who commits certain types of violent acts to “advance” a cause you don’t agree with.
She won’t say (and probably doesn’t think personally) that abortion clinic bombers are “terrorists” because large parts of her base, and for all I know she herself, agrees with the cause.
She would never admit she understands what terrorist actually means in public (though she undoubtedly knows either consciously or unconsciously) because doing so undermines the conceit that there is some fundamental objective distinction between what “we” do and what “they” do.
The problem is that she’s been so quick to throw around the word “terrorist” in any situation that can be linked to Obama, that when she suddenly stops using it wrt issues usually linked to the right, it’s noteworthy.
She gave a stupid answer - stupid not because the definition of terrorism is so well defined and she was ‘wrong’ about it, but stupid because it’s a no-brainer to say, “Of COURSE it’s terrorism.” She had nothing to lose by saying that. What, she’s going to lose the abortion-bomber vote? The sympathizers of abortion clinic bombers? All 50 of them?
She was given a softball question that she should have knocked out of the park:
“Of course abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. A terrorist is someone who seeks to advance a political goal through violence and fear in the general population. This is why terrorists are much more dangerous than typical murderers.”
That kind of setup would then allow her to say, “And this is why it’s so troubling that Back Obama was willing to associate with William Ayers. This is a man who believes that he is so correct that he’s willing to use violence and intimidation to push his views on others. No American politician should want to give the time of day to such a person, because that attitude is anathema to everything Americans stand for.”
Or words to that effect. She could have at once sounded principled, and then by setting up the horror of abortion clinic bombing used it to make Ayers, and Obama by association, look even worse.
Putting aside from whether it’s true, or whether Obama deserves to be smeared through association, from a purely self-interested political standpoint she took a tremendous opportunity and by waffling around made herself look bad and diminished the Ayers/Obama argument. Poor politics.
That’s her base.
Good answer Sam Stone.
For further proof that Palin is (at least politically) stupid:
From a CNN article:
No. I don’t want her to be next in line to be President.
I agree with McCain about more things than Obama. I think McCain or Obama would do well in the White House, or at least as good as any other politician.
However, the ticket that is out there holds both the President and Vice President. The VP, in addition to “Ruling the Senate and really getting in there and making some real policy changes” or whatever she said, is the next in line for the President.
No, I get that you are saying that. I just can’t believe that’s your argument. She didn’t say they’re NOT terrorists, so it’s not that bad.
Look. I just don’t think Palin is smart enough for the VP spot, okay. I can’t get past the horrible interviews, answers, and speeches she makes. Of course, that’s probably because I don’t live in a small town. I don’t have the values that she’s looking for. I’m not one of those “Real Americans” that she’s always talking about that lives on Main Street.
What do you understand she meant by the words "“I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there”?
**Sam **, you suggest that Palin should have said:
Current indications are that Palin is going to be irrelevant in a few weeks’ time. However, if she had been so silly as to give such a clear definition of terrorism, and if she has a future in US national politics, should would have done nothing less (by such a statement) than create a spear for journalists to skewer her with on the subject of terrorism from now till her retirement.
The definition given would be thrown back in her face every time the US did something, errr, robust in future. And she would be put on the spot about past actions too.
“Mrs Palin, you said in 2008 that “A terrorist is someone who seeks to advance a political goal through violence and fear in the general population”. We are currently pursuing certain sanctions against Iran because of its support of terrorism. They say that US supported terrorists in Nicaragua. Given your previously stated definition of terrorism, do you agree? In 2003 we invaded Iraq with a “shock and awe” campaign of bombing designed to cause quick surrender at least in part through intimidation of the populace. Do you support those actions?”
<Sarah Palin>Well, ya know, Brian, that’s a good question and John McCain and I, we’re Mavericks, and we just don’t understand why Barack Obama doesn’t come clean about his relationship with known terrorist Bill Ayers, and, yeah, our sanctions on Iran are correct because everybody knows they want to destroy Israel if we let 'em, and so of course I support everything our brave men and women in uniform are doing around the world and in Eastern nations like Nicaragua to protect this great country for all the hockey moms and Joe six-packs of America.</sp>
I’d wager that’s as close as you’d get from Palin. What? Oh, you think she’d actually answer the question? Silly, silly boy.
No I don’t. I was discussing a hypothetical.
Also, you are misunderstanding what the purpose of Q&A sessions is: we all know no well trained politician is going to give a straightforward answer to a reasonable question if it’s going to put them in a bad light. But it’s informative to see what reasonable questions they won’t answer.
Seconded. Hilarious, really.