Palin Defines Terrorism

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 07:19:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

When Brian Williams asked Palin whether she would classify an abortion clinic bomber as a terrorist, her typically convoluted answer came down to "no."

There’s no question that Bill Ayers by his own admittance was one who thought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There is 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 gonna use the word "terrorist" there.

At the end of the linked video, Palin reaffirms her understanding of the "terrorist" label: [more ...]

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

Given the "vast variety" of magazines and newspapers that have "been in front of" Palin "all these years," it's surprising she is unaware of Republican dogma: any crime committed against an American business interest (except an abortion clinic) is an act of terrorism. Environmental or animal rights activists who damage property belonging to the timber or fur industries have been "the nation's top domestic terrorism threat" under the Bush administration.

If Palin can find a way to argue that an animal rights activist who tears down a fence is a terrorist but an abortion clinic bomber isn't, she has depths of intellect not yet revealed. If she continues to maintain that terrorism is only violence directed at government targets, perhaps she can explain whether she views 9/11 as an act of terrorism.

< 12 Texecutions Set for Over Next Six Weeks | John McCain: Rock Star? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Palin Defines Terrorism | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Pfft. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 01:10:08 AM EST

I know a long string of people that would care to disagree with her, including me, but more importantly folks like Ron Suskind and Lawrence Wright. In my International Terrorism & Violence Class, we spend a good 2 weeks talking about right-wing terror, and a good chunk of that time is spent discussing folks like Eric Rudolph and the rest of the Army of God crowd, who are most CERTAINLY terrorists, and some of them freely admit it.

Ugh.

Sarah Meets the English Language (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Ellis on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 02:31:50 AM EST

Perhaps Palin would do better if she were allowed to answer these questions in her first language. Of course, she will have to identify which language that is, but listening to her mangle English made me wonder if English is her native tongue. Then, I realized she hasn't had the time to learn a second language -- she's been much too busy learning a second accent.

"There is no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance..."

Does that sound like someone who speaks English well? Of course not. (Eric Blair would strangle her on the spot!) Listening to that kind of nonsense makes me think she is someone who is poorly educated but wants to sound well-educated. However, she simply doesn't have the tools she needs to pull it off.

As others have noted she constantly puts in words where normal people don't. "There" is one of her favorites, but in the terrorism clip she refers to "our United States Capitol" and "our Pentagon" where most people would say "the US Capitol and the Pentagon" and leave it at that.

She says "...others who would want to engage in harming," "where others who want to harm" would do just as well (much better, in fact). She says "anyone else who would seek to campaign to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans." Way too many words -- "seek to campaign to destroy?"

I think her wordiness is an attempt to sound more intelligent and educated than she is -- and the attempt makes her sound just plain ridiculous.

Interesting comment (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by bluejane on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:05:53 AM EST

You've hit upon one angle that explains a lot: her efforts to appear more educated/erudite than she is. Like the misuse of "admittance." Most people get that kind of thing right because they listen to language and sentence formation as they grow up and can usually select the correct forms but for some reason she often misses. Close calls but not quite the cigar in her sentence formation and vocabulary selection. Makes me wonder if she was raised by wolves (or moose perhaps). This is why her sentences often cannot be successfully diagrammed. She tries to appear more informed than she is by pouring buckets full of words into a sentence, letting it run on while "slotting" into the word-stream (not sentences but a word-stream) with lots of "policy-sounding" key words which sometimes amount to code words if one listens carefully. "They know who they are and they know what I mean," said Dan Qualye.

She know exactly what she's doing and will make no admission whatsover that abortion clinic bomber are terrorists. This is a bright signal about her view of the rule of law and violence: civilization vs the jungle. She's in the latter.

She knows how to steer her sled on the righteous path. Listen for key phrases relating to what she seems to know the most about, like being "Blessed if we are elected." This disturbs me because I believe underneath all this fake verbiage is a fervent fundamentalist zealot who sees getting elected as "fulfilling the will of God" and once she gets her narcissistic little hands on heavy-duty power (far greater that thinly populated Alaska), she'll rally her fellow zealots to all sorts of odd little veers away from "our Constitution."

[ Parent ]

: Palin is the ulimate manchurian candidate (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by samtaylor2 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 07:49:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Should read . . . (none / 0) (#6)
by bluejane on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 04:12:40 AM EST

" . . .(far greater THAN thinly populated Alaska). . ."

[ Parent ]

Perhaps what she is trying to say.... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 08:04:31 AM EST

without saying it is that one person's terrorist is the next's freedom fighter...and she thinks abortion clinic bombers are freedom fighters.

: That's it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by txpublicdefender on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 10:33:57 AM EST

That is exactly what she is saying. Someone is a terrorist if she doesn't support the cause they are fighting for. They are a freedom fighter if she does.
It's also ironic that she views attacking a military target like the Pentagon as terrorism while viewing an attack on a purely civilian target like an abortion clinic as not constitution terrorism.

[ Parent ]

Erik Rudolph was a "terroist"... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by rise hillary rise on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST

....if you apply the model. However, the Ashcroft Justice dept had to be dragged kicking and screaming to prosecute him because he bombed abortion clinics. I guess these people think that there's "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists.

on that subject, I always thought that it was interesting that a rookie cop apprehended Rudolph. seems like the veteran cops were probably part of a conspiracy to protect him. just sayin'.

Oh man (none / 0) (#2)
by Faust on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 01:53:29 AM EST

this gave me a mordant chuckle.

Gotta wonder... (none / 0) (#4)
by stevea66 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 02:51:23 AM EST

One wonders how she managed to get elected in Alaska, but then I recall that there are more people in Tucson than there are in Alaska. The right time, the right place, the right 'wink,' and anything can happen, I guess.

: George W Bush (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Fabian on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 07:07:00 AM EST

Governor of Texas (much more populous than AK)
President of the United States
Any further questions?

[ Parent ]
: throw the bums out (none / 0) (#10)
by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST

see Ventura.....

[ Parent ]

I would say Palin defines cretinism.. or (none / 0) (#12)
by ThatOneVoter on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM EST

does she personify it?

11th Circuit decision deciding this question (none / 0) (#14)
by McCainBush08 on Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 06:09:16 PM EST

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit recently decided that a conspiracy to bomb abortion clinics involves terrorism:

http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/418F3d1212.html

Maybe Palin can send her stylist to law school.