Friday, October 24, 2008

Depends On What the Meaning Of "Is" Is?

This hits just keep on coming. So Sarah Palin continues to harp on the all-Ayers all the time tip. It should certainly be reasonable to assume, then, that Sarah Palin is strongly against domestic terrorism in all its forms and any form of domestic bombing right?

Well, maybe not so much.

When asked by Brian Williams of NBC news whether or not she views abortion clinic bombers, even those whose bombings actually killed people (none of Ayers' bombings resulted in any fatalities), Sarah Palin couldn't decide whether an abortion clinic bombing constituted domestic terrorism or not:


"I don't know if you could use the word 'terrorist' there..."

I guess the appropriate response is, Sarah Palin was against domestic terrorism before she was for domestic terrorism? The more correct answer is the far right is against all forms of domestic terrorism, unless it's in support of one of our long-cherished planks. In that case, it's not reeeeealy terrorism.

It gets worse, when she ends saying she would lump "in the category of Ayers" anyone who would "seek to destroy innocent Americans". The implication, of course, is her belief that abortion clinic workers are not innocent, and thus, bombing them to death isn't terrorism.

At this point, the only remaining question is, is Sarah Palin simply pretty vacuous and stupid, or just flat out evil? The woman becomes more and more vile every day.

There is no question that Ayers' bombings of Washington buildings in the late 1960s constitute terrorism. Yet can there be any question at all that, say, Eric Rudolph's bombing of an abortion clinic, killing a security guard and critically injuring a nurse, was a terrorist act?

All I've got to say is, please to be running the Palin/Bachmann ticket in 2012.

EDIT: The first video I posted continued the questions, wherein Palin appears to repeat her inability to commit to clinic bombers as terrorits, but is "no longer available."

1 comment:

Francis Luong (Franco) said...

Well... if it's not terrorism, then it's murder that she is sanctioning. Even if the law were on their side, it would qualify as vigilantism - which guarantees no one an objective application of the law. And the bottom line is that she can provide no earthly reason why another person should be able to dictate how anyone controls the functions of their own body. She clearly does not subscribe to the idea that every person has an inalienable right to life.