NBC's Brian Williams surely made the abortion lobby smile this week when he asked Sarah Palin in an interview, "Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist?" There's few things that abortion defenders love more than painting pro-lifers as violent bombers, arsonists, and assassins. But reality paints a different picture. The facts (pdf):
- There have been zero murders of abortionists and abortion clinic workers in the United States and Canada this decade. The last "attempted murder" was eight years ago, in 2000.
- There were zero such murders in the United States and Canada between 1973 and 1992.
- There has been one bombing of an abortion clinic so far this decade.
These stats must have been culled from some rabid pro-life group, right? Wrong. They come from the abortion lobby itself. They come from the National Abortion Federation (NAF). While any violence against a doctor, worker, or property is wrong, the facts show how rare violence against abortionists, abortion clinic workers, and abortion clinics really is.
But why let the truth get in the way of a good smear? For Brian Williams, it's already, "Mission accomplished."
(We've addressed this very issue before, in two previous posts: Here and here.)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yes but if the bomber
October 26, 2008 - 19:08 ET by MidAmericaYes but if the bomber 'repents' having been a bomber he can get a really good position at one of our prestigious universities.
He doesn't need to repent to
October 26, 2008 - 19:21 ET by sherylsimsHe doesn't need to repent to get a job like that.
To get a job at a
October 26, 2008 - 19:35 ET by GrannyGrump42To get a job at a prestigious university, he'd only have to repent that he targeted abortion facilities. Had he bombed CPCs, he'd be clutched to their bosom.
Well, "repents" along with
October 26, 2008 - 19:55 ET by balboaWell, "repents" along with "is found not guilty of wrong-doing."
In Ayers Case
October 26, 2008 - 20:11 ET by Junk Science SkepticNot being prosecuted/convicted due to technicalities in no way implies being "found not guilty of wrong-doing."
Ayers has publicly admitted his guilt to acts of domestic terrorism, case closed.
Barnett A. Slepian.
October 26, 2008 - 19:14 ET by allanfThere was the October 23, 1998 murder of Dr. Barnett A. Slepian, shot down in his own home by sniper James C. Kopp. Kopp is hardly pro-life. It is hard to see Eric Rudolph, the Olympic bomber and Alabama abortion clinic bomber as reflective of pro-life views either.
I think "traitor" is a better term to describre airs than terrorist. You don't have reformed traitors.
fair is fair
October 26, 2008 - 19:28 ET by WesenI want Brian Williams to ask Obama why he subscribes to the tenets of his faith and how it will effect Americans.
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
She still blew it with her
October 26, 2008 - 19:37 ET by GrannyGrump42She still blew it with her answer. A curt, "Of course! Thank God the few nuts who did that sort of thing were so few and far between that we were able to get them all locked up where they belong!" and then move on. But she hemmed and hawed.
Agreed.
October 26, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Fist of EtiquetteShe should have taken a page out of McCain's book. The anti-abortion base still should have no problem denouncing clinic bombings. A forceful answer was called for there.
Exactly! Pro-life groups
October 27, 2008 - 06:08 ET by GrannyGrump42Exactly! Pro-life groups were offering rewards for information leading to the capture of bombers.
Maybe Palin's a Johnny-come-lately to prolife activism so she wasn't in the know about what was going on during that era. But that's still no excuse for not simply answering, "Yes. Bombers are terrorists. Next question?"
well ther is always the
October 28, 2008 - 15:23 ET by patmac49well ther is always the possibility that she feels that it is justafiable..i hope not ,because it is terrorism..but there at=re people who feel they have that right..we saw that on 9/11
Not My Cause, But . . .
October 26, 2008 - 20:01 ET by Junk Science SkepticAbortion, pro or con, is not my cause, but smacking down smug liberals is, so . . . along with adding some slapping Williams around about the rarity of abortion clinic violence, there also should have been a few words mentioned about the $100 million plus of destruction and deadly attacks by eco-terrorists, especially since gov't employee James Hansen and ex-gov't employee Al Gore have recently gone on the record as supporting such acts.
Palin's response was good, . . . but citing the scarcity of abortion clinic violence and giving Williams' question a Biden-esque dismissal would have been better, . . . and going for full smackdown by citing the increasing frequency of lefty eco-terrorism to put it all into perspective would have been best.
If the election gets stolen this time, we need to spend the next four years having the Michael Vick of debate coaches training Palin to just absolutely eviscerate these lefty interviewers at even the slightest scent of liberal spin.
Unless I'm missing
October 26, 2008 - 20:05 ET by balboaUnless I'm missing something, I don't think Williams said that those bombings are commonplace. He merely asked if those who commit that crime are terrorists.
Merely?
October 26, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Junk Science SkepticSurely you jest.
As stated in the OP, anybody with an open mind could see the feeble attempt to paint all pro-lifers as bomb throwers.
He was playing the standard lefty moral equivalence game.
In the leftwing mind, Palin having absolutely no connection (beyond being anti-abortion) whatsoever to the rare few nuts who have committed abortion clinic violence, is somehow morally equivalent to Obama being inextricably involved with the leader of a known terrorist organization who has openly admitted to committing domestic terrorism.
Again, lacking a uterus and/or a medical degree, the pro-life/pro-choice debate is not my cause, but I am a thinker, and I'm not blind to the media narrative.
Just In Case . . .
October 26, 2008 - 20:48 ET by Junk Science SkepticJust in case I'm jumping ahead of the class here, the OP was about Williams trying to paint Palin with a weakly-supported stereotype, but Williams' motive was to respond to Palin's assertion that Obama has been palling around with a terrorist.
His best "well you are too" argument was the lame-*ss moral-equivalence ploy.
Debating whether the "pro-lifers are bomb-throwers" stereotype is thin, very thin or ultra-thin totally misses the point.
Hello Bal!!!
October 28, 2008 - 20:37 ET by TheSterSup.
Ster.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.
more violence against pro-lifers this decade
October 26, 2008 - 20:03 ET by dans0622I have only one example but 1 is more than none. Here in Ottawa, we are having a 40 day vigil outside of an abortion office and one of the people praying was assaulted by someone...thrown down, black eye, etc. It's reported on lifesite news, I think. Anyway, this is just another stupid question in a long line of stupid questions.
Peace on earth?
October 26, 2008 - 20:17 ET by nicholas nicklebyYes, Dave, I'm sure we can all be glad that the last attempted murder was in 2000, the last accomplished murder in 1998, and the last bombing in 2001--bringing the grand total of bombings from 1973 to today up to 41.
But let's check the last decade for other crimes against abortion clinics and workers:
Arson: 22 (the last 2 in 2007)
Attempted arson: 25
Invasion: 27
Vandalism: 608
Trespassing: 1833
Anthrax threats: 658 (with 2001 being a bumper crop of 554)
Assault: 64
Death threats:108
Kidnappings: 2
Burglary: 91
Yes, it sure looks like violence against clinics is a thing of the past, as long as we're not counting arson, attempted arson, threats (anthrax and death), and burglary.
(Also, I'm a little surprised she hemmed and hawed about this: here's a group of people trying to intimidate others--sure, they may not be shooting peope, but they are using terror to achieve their political ends. Isn't that the definition of terrorism?)
Not only that
October 26, 2008 - 20:34 ET by Josh SNFor a number of years the militants in the pro-life movement represented the #1 source of domestic terrorist acts.
I am not surprised in the least that Palin refused to label them terrorists.
Ok I will label them
October 26, 2008 - 20:42 ET by dark_dsOk I will label them Terrorists .. but then the question begs did John Mc Cain KNOWINGLY sit on a board with an unrepentant abortion bomber
the reason folks dont have a problem with Obamas past connections is that they agree with his past connections .....I used to agree with alot of that sludge (not the weathermen) and if I was still a lefty I wouldnt see a probelm with Ayers,Acorn and Wright .. I would say the say damn thing that the media is saying and the blind supporters of Oman are saying .. but thankfully my eyes got opened a number of years ago.. perhaps yours will as well after the major attack that Biden practically guarantees
Nickleby
October 26, 2008 - 20:56 ET by lotrCitation please. Wait, let me guess and save you time -- you wouldn't happen to be getting these figures from Planned Parenthood Federation, would you?
Reality check from an eyewitness. I've been to the so-called "pickets" outside of clinics. The "picketers," many of whom are women, pray. They try to stop the women, most of whom arrive alone, some via taxi, from going in, but there is never any physicality. On the other hand, I've seen people driving by give the finger, yell F U and other obsenities, and hostile pedestrians will accost those praying the rosary.
Sorry, but if anyone wants to point to aggressive behavior outside of clinics, it does not come from those rosary-praying "Jesus freaks." Not to mention the untold violence that occurs within the clinics...
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Citation already given--by Dave!
October 26, 2008 - 21:42 ET by nicholas nicklebyactually, I was just using the pdf that Dave offered in the post, from the National Abortion Federation. He seems to have forgotten to list those other crimes.
And I didn't say anything about the peacefullness of protesters saying things to the people going in, or the violence of the people going in saying things to the protesters. I merely wanted to point out that there are some criminals in the pro-life movement who do not hesitate to commit violent crimes against persons and property, i.e., terrorism (like kidnapping and arson)--though, thankfully, not in any of the pickets that you witnessed.
Ahh yes -- missed making
October 27, 2008 - 08:49 ET by lotrAhh yes -- missed making that connection -- my bad.
However, the point I was making is in line with that of Granny below -- that I, based on my personal experience at different clinics on different dates, as well as my experience at the March for Life protest in DC (attended by tens of thousands at least), and my numerous friendships with pro-life activists, have serious reservations regarding the validity of these numbers. These people, often with babies and/or children in tow, are about the most truly pacifist people imaginable. I provided some descriptions of of their typical behavior. But, they do actively try to stop women from killing their offspring, which I think the radical pro-abortion lobby then inflates as "violent acts," as they "pose undue hindrance" to the unmitigated Pursuit of Abortion.
The whole issue of pro-life "violence against clinics" is a red herring, but one that the media continues to exaggerate. I present this entire thread as Exhibit A. One may argue what Palin should've, would've, could've said, but my counter-question is: What was the point of this inane question to begin with? What was the relevance of this question?
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -- Edgar Allan Poe
1, 2, 3
October 27, 2008 - 18:40 ET by nicholas nicklebyI should have been more explicit re: the numbers I got from the pdf that Dave referenced.
That said, I understand the argument that most pro-lifers are not violent.
However, not all pro-lifers are satisfied with yelling or talking to people--as demonstrated by 22 arsons, 25 attempted arsons, and a host of threats and invasions. No one is pretending that yelling at people from a picket equals violence. Arson, however, equals violence. Issuing a death threat equals violence (of a sort).
Or, if you don't think issuing a death threat is violence, let's call it terrorism--after all, the people who are willing to threaten death to prevent abortions are using terror to enforce their political agenda.
Sounds like terrorism to me.
In which case, the question is very relevant; Palin opposes Islamic terrorism (and everyone should oppose Hindu terrorism against Christians and Muslims in India)--but what about the persecution of other people.
And I'm not going to argue pro-life/pro-choice here, but, hey, fun facts from my friend the minister about the whole "life starts at conception" idea:
"The idea that life, and specifically ensoulment
occurs at conception is a very recent idea, and it's one that any church
leader even 200 years ago would have either laughed at, or been
offended by. Before/without modern medicine, hygiene and nutrition, a
damn lot of pregnancies don't make it past the first few months. In
that context, the idea that the soul enters the 'body' at conception is
basically a smear against God, who is constantly making and then
killing all these kids all the time. The theological concensus before
abortion became politically useful was that ensoulment occured at the
quickening (i.e., when the fetus first kicks)."
hmmm
October 27, 2008 - 18:48 ET by nicholas nicklebyI can't for the life of me remember why I titled that post "1, 2, 3"
[edit: and h/t for the EAPoe nod. When in elementary school, we had to memorize a poem, and I tried "The Raven."]
You again missed my point
October 28, 2008 - 09:20 ET by lotrYou again missed my point -- I seriously question the validity of these claims, based upon my experience with the would-be offenders. I have, on the other hand, on pretty much every occasion that I've been to a clinic, witnessed the aggressive, intimidating acts coming from "the other side." There was another poster on this thread who has also testified as much. Not to mention the 100,000 strong March for Life that we never see in the media, perhaps because it's not sensational enough, perhaps because all those people, elderly, teenagers, children, walking orderly, cooperating with police, obeying laws, not interfering with Commerce, praying, no body piercings, no tatoos, no controlled substances, no radical 60's paraphernalia, but instead toting pro-life messages -- that just doesn't get the ratings on TV like rioting does. But wait! I thought those pro-lifers were Terrorists! Brian Williams said so. It's an enigma.
And sorry to break it to your minister, but even if what he said about ensoulment was true (which the Catholic Bishops, as well as Pope John Paul II, have firmly rebuked), the fact remains that killing one's offspring in utero 200 years ago (heck, even 80 years ago) was unthinkable by anyone with a conscience. Contra-ception itself was renounced by all Christian Churches until the Anglicans caved in the early 20th Century. Furthermore, the unborn person is explicitly spoken of as being "known by God" in Scripture.
Who are we to judge God? Who are we to question God? God is the Giver of Life, not us. Has your minister not read the Scripture?
Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised. -- Job 1:21
Taking your minister's logic to its conclusion, then all human beings are a smear against God, who is constantly "making and then killing" us (and trust me, life does indeed seem fleeting). Sometimes death comes upon large groups en masse, somtimes upon innocent children, sometimes with utter horror, but no matter when, that "inner voice" tells us that death, contrary to the Life of God, is always something to grieve, and therefore Christian morality teaches that it is never licit to commit murder.
As a final note, please don't claim that this is "fun": No matter where one may stand on the issue, abortion is no "funny" matter.
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -- Edgar Allan Poe
complain to Dave about the numbers
October 28, 2008 - 14:51 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi LOTR,
I don't doubt that most pro-life people are law-abiding people who would never think to shoot an abortion doctor or set fire to a clinic.
Yet, according to the organization which Dave Pierre cited, such incidences do occur.
I'm not arguing that these things actually happen, what I'm arguing is that Dave intentionally misled people by leaving out all the facts that worked against him and left in the facts that worked for him.
(So, in that sense, we're arguing at cross-purposes: you're arguing about violence against abortion providers, I'm arguing about Dave's misrepresentation of the facts. Which is a long way to say that he's biased--you may not like the liberal bias in the media, but I think we all here should agree that a conservative bias is just as bad: what we need to do is face facts, not make up fanciful stories about how we wish things were.)
(Now, on to my digression: by saying that I had "fun facts" about abortion history, I meant to point out how I was introducing a tangent--a digression. I wasn't making a joke--after all "fun" and "funny" aren't the same thing. Rather, I was offering information that people might not know. For instance, Pope Innocent III around 1200 said that abortion was a serious sin, but only after the quickening, and in 1591, Pope Gregory XIV declared that before 17 weeks, abortion was not to be punished by the church more strictly than by legal authorities.
I'm not trying to change any one's mind with these facts, but only to
point out that our contemporary thought about life starting at conception would have been rejected in the past. (I'm assuming here that Popes Innocent and Gregory knew the Bible, and still would have disagreed with Pope John Paul II.))
Fair enough. I just think
October 28, 2008 - 20:33 ET by lotrFair enough. I just think the whole violence against clinics is way over inflated. But yes, you had every right to quote statistics from the very same reference used by the NB writer.
Regarding the whole "fun" thing, unfortunately it's difficult to read tone over the internet, so I wasn't sure whether you were being flippant or not.
It's also fair enough to cite what previous popes have said -- I would have to look into this, as I usually just make my own conclusion based on the Bible. However, I think that it is precisely the advances in modern prenatal science that has led to increased clarification from the modern pontiffs. Popes Gregory and Innocent, without access to modern optical microscopes, could not have known what "fertilization," much less DNA, was -- it truly was a "black box."
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -- Edgar Allan Poe
yes..killing is against gods
October 28, 2008 - 15:30 ET by patmac49yes..killing is against gods law...very explicit..biut don t see anything about condoms in the bible so i am thinking mybe god is cool about that so who are these people saying otherwise and wher do they get their authority..did god give it to them...or did they just take ..either way,i do not think they talk for god
Nic
October 26, 2008 - 21:10 ET by well99I hate agreeing with you but the truth doesnt change because of issues.Those were terrorist acts.The ones that threatened peoples lives.Bottom line is Sara never gave speeches with any of them or sat on boards.Also her political career wasnt launched from their homes.
You must be getting your
October 27, 2008 - 06:25 ET by GrannyGrump42You must be getting your stats from NARAL or something. They tally up everything they can count, regardless of how the case actually plays out.
There was an incident near Harrisburg, PA. The prolifers were on the sidewalk with their signs. The "escorts" came out to taunt them. One of the "escorts" threw her empty styrofoam coffee cup down on the lawn and kicked it over toward the prolifers. She yelled at them for "littering" and told them to pick it up and throw it away. Ed Snell, being an agreeable man, stepped onto the lawn, picked up the cup, and put it in his car to throw away later. Next thing he knew, the cops were there arresting him for "trespassing". Of course, the case was thrown out, but it allowed the facility and the abortion lobby to rack up another "trespassing" complaint.
They also count it as "trespassing" when an outraged parent finds out their underage daughter is there, having a secret abortion, and they go in and try to talk to her.
It doesn't matter WHO does the "crime", or what the circumstances are. It can be somebody like Frank Mandiola, a prochoicer who called in bomb threats and death threats himself in order to generate sympathy for the abortionists -- they still count it.
Start counting cases where it's been shown that the anti-abortionists were actually at fault. Oh, but you can't because nobody keeps a tally on THAT!
I used the same source as Dave
October 27, 2008 - 18:46 ET by nicholas nicklebyActually, as previously stated, I just used the pdf that Dave Pierre used--I wanted to point out how nicely he spun the number by leaving out those other categories.
I mean, you might claim that terrorizing people with death threats or invasions isn't violent (or you might have an answer for why those trespassing cases were okay), but 22 arsons?
I highly doubt all 22 of those arsons are traceable to pro-choicers looking for sympathy or looking to collect the insurance.
MSM = Missing Smarts Media
October 26, 2008 - 20:18 ET by wdhorningAnd is the mother and doctor who "butcher" a innocent, helpless baby "terrorists"?
Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist?
October 26, 2008 - 20:48 ET by shawn228I do not understand the need for the display of statistics on this thread. The question that was asked of her "is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, and she could not bring herself to say yes.
I believe any one that would bomb a chuch is a terrorist
I believe anyone that bombs a Mosk is a terrorist
I believe anyone that bombs an NRA meeting is a terrorist
In fact I believe bombing any innocent person is a terrorist,
Why could she not bring herself to label a abortion bomber a terrorist?
He's got my vote
Some Selective Editing On The Fool-Tube Clip
October 26, 2008 - 20:58 ET by Junk Science SkepticI saw the exchange as it was broadcast, she did in fact say yes at the end of her answer, just shortly after the Fool-Tube clip ends.
If she had just given a short "absolutely yes" answer, it almost certainly would have been spun into a "Palin Denounces Pro-Life Movement" headline.
Junk Science
October 26, 2008 - 21:17 ET by shawn228I saw most it as well Junk science, I do not remember that part. Can you tell me what you heard that I did not? Please be as specific as you can....thx
He's got my vote
See Below For Link
October 26, 2008 - 21:26 ET by Junk Science SkepticSee my post at 22:22 ET
*sigh*
October 26, 2008 - 20:54 ET by candanceI am disappointed in Palin over this. Why couldn't she drop the Ayers thing for two seconds and just say "yes, anyone who bombs a building is a terrorist." She has given Dems a gun full of ammo to use against her.
I love Sarah Palin, don't get me wrong, but that was painful to watch.
Candance
October 26, 2008 - 20:56 ET by shawn228Thank you babe, your the best!!!
He's got my vote
candance & shawn
October 26, 2008 - 21:00 ET by MrShyI meant to weigh in on this the other day. You're right, Candance, she could have easily used the right words to say "bombing anything is wrong", but didn't even say that. Strange.
Of course, she was in a bind because then if she DOES call it terrorism (and it is) then it nullifies the terrorism issue. But she still should have put her foot down on that, but then explained how there's a distinction.
Btw, a chat tonight? I need to run and find food or I'll start getting light-headed... :p
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Chat-a-palooza
October 26, 2008 - 21:02 ET by Free StinkerA chat? With enough of us present to make it worthwhile?
What's up with that? ;-)
"Dewey defeats Truman!" --Chicago Tribune, 1948
change
October 26, 2008 - 21:52 ET by MrShycode word for chat
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Hillary in a Bikini !!
October 26, 2008 - 21:55 ET by Free StinkerOn second thought. I'd rather just chat
"Dewey defeats Truman!" --Chicago Tribune, 1948
Thanks Free !!!
October 26, 2008 - 22:11 ET by MrShy(not) :p
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
slightly disagree
October 26, 2008 - 21:05 ET by candanceIf she came out and said that clinic bombers were terrorists, how does that nullify the issue? She never worked or was friends with a clinic bomber and no pro life group out there actually endorses it.
She can easily support pro lifers while denouncing any kooks who do bad things.
Chat sounds fun, as long as I'm gone by midnight. :)
She Does Denounce The Kooks
October 26, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Junk Science SkepticShe does in fact include "Anyone else . . . who would seek to destroy innocent Americans" with Ayers as terrorists. Check out 2:30-2:45 on this version of the clip.
cmon JSS
October 26, 2008 - 21:29 ET by candanceI'm on Palin's side here and I still think that was a bad answer. It took her 60 seconds and some nudging from Williams and then all she said was that people who blow up the Capital or kill innocent people are "in the same category" as Bill Ayers.
The extended answer was still half-hearted and weak.
STOP THE PRESSES
October 26, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Junk Science SkepticA long-winded, slightly vague answer from a politician???
I'm shocked, totally shocked!!!
And that's our bigest
October 26, 2008 - 21:37 ET by Free StinkerAnd that's our bigest complaint about Governor Palin.
She didn't give a concise answer to a question from Brian Williams. Team Obama wishes that was all they had to worry about with Biden.
"Dewey defeats Truman!" --Chicago Tribune, 1948
you are right free
October 26, 2008 - 21:42 ET by candanceIn the face of Biden's monumental gaffes, this one is small fry stuff, and like I said I know what she meant but just think she stalled too much.
I still love her though. :)
What's not to like about
October 26, 2008 - 21:45 ET by Free StinkerWhat's not to like about Sarah Palin?
So far my only complaint is that she's let McCain's advisors hold her back. Unleash The Pitt Bull ! ;-)
"Dewey defeats Truman!" --Chicago Tribune, 1948
Who's He?
October 26, 2008 - 21:42 ET by Junk Science SkepticBiden, Biden who? Haven't seen him much on TV since the convention, thought I saw his pic on a milk carton the other day.
I heard he was Obama's running mate, any truth to that? What I have heard from Biden made me think he was campaigning for McCain/Palin.
can-can
October 26, 2008 - 21:35 ET by MrShyI agree. There was no reason to not say, "yes, that's terrorism and I denouce it."
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
I agree with you completely.
October 26, 2008 - 22:36 ET byI agree with you completely. If you're convinced that acts of violence directed against non-combatants for political/ideological ends constitute "terrorism" then Palin should have simply said "Of course."
I do not, however, believe that Palin considers doctors who perform abortions or their patients "non-combatants" or "innocents."
does not me a damn what she
October 28, 2008 - 15:35 ET by patmac49does not me a damn what she thinks...as long as it is legal,they are innocents..or are we condoning disregarding rthe law because we do not like it and as someone running for vp she should know better..cannot please everybody and you will fail if you try to
Ok, I looked at this
October 26, 2008 - 20:57 ET by MightyMouthOk, I looked at this interview and have come to the conclusion that Palin is right. Now she could have used fewer words to express herself, but none the less she is correct:
In the context that Williams himself brought up, abortion bombing is not a terrorist activity, it is a criminal act. Attacking the national icons and monuments of the United States (as both Ayers and Bin Laden did) is the act of "Terrorists". So in the context of the interview, Sarah Palin is right once again.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
sorry mighty mouth
October 26, 2008 - 21:00 ET by candanceThere is a big difference between throwing a few rocks or spray painting a building and actually bombing it. If someone bombed my house because I'm voting for McCain that would count as terrorism, just as the PLO is a terrorist group for bombing shopping centers in Israel and the IRA is a terrorist group for bombing banks in London.
Palin was caught off guard and gave a bad answer. Simple as that.
I agree with the vernacular
October 26, 2008 - 21:10 ET by MightyMouthI agree with the vernacular definition of "Terrorist" as you do. But in response to Williams question, she tried (although not eloquently as you point out) to answer the broader definition of "Terrorists" vi v 9/11, watch the clip a few times. Williams was attacking her pro life stance with that question. And yes she could have just said yes and probably should have, but I can see the logic in her answer.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
well Mighty
October 26, 2008 - 21:18 ET by candanceI do agree with you that Williams pulled a "gotcha" since clinic bombings are so rare these days. But I believe in consistency and fairness, and we would attack anyone else if they had given that answer.
Candance
October 26, 2008 - 21:29 ET by MightyMouthRegardless of the gotcha aspects of the question, Williams was trying to get Palin to equate 9/11 to Abortion Clinic bombing. And thus equate the Pro-Life movement with fanatical Islam. Although both are reprehensible they are not equal. Just as mowing down 32 students on a campus cannot be compared to jelously killing of a spouses lover in a fit of passion. Yes all criminal killing is bad but not necessarily equal in outrage,shock and every other emotion you can think of.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
huh???
October 26, 2008 - 21:37 ET by candanceWilliams is trying to say pro lifers are as bad as radical Islam??
She (rightfully) calls Bill Ayers a terrorist for bombing buildings. 9/11 had zero to do with it. If Ayers is a terrorist then so is Eric Rudolph. The pro life movement can survive without anyone having to cover for crazy kooks.
huh???
October 26, 2008 - 21:58 ET by MightyMouthSo Palin is covering up for crazy kooks?
I thought you said she just flubbed the answer?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
what?
October 26, 2008 - 22:09 ET by candanceWhy are you putting words in my mouth?
Palin flubbed her answer. No more, no less. But all this effort here to split hairs in defense of her is bogus. Any crazy kook who does that should be called out - by everyone - as a straight up terrorist and the pro life movement will be fine regardless.
Why are you making this so complicated?
"Why are you making this so
October 26, 2008 - 22:18 ET by MightyMouth"Why are you making this so complicated?"
Ok, Ok I give up: a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I get it.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It may have been an attempted "gotcha" moment,
October 26, 2008 - 21:32 ET by RESTLESS 1But the McCain campaign should have seen the question of abortion clinic bombings coming a mile away, what with the seething on the left about questions into "that one's" ties to ayers.
Sarah should have been prepared for the question, and being caught off guard is no excuse.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Then why didn't McCain..
October 26, 2008 - 22:08 ET by MightyMouthjump in with a clarification? (or did he? I didn't see the entire piece).
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That's a good question
October 26, 2008 - 22:20 ET by RESTLESS 1As I said, the McCain campaign should have been prepared for this. It looks as though they weren't.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Well then...
October 26, 2008 - 22:24 ET by MightyMouthMaybe we shouldn't be voting for such an incompetent duo. I mean really, McCain just sits there with an entire minute to form a reasoned answer to help her out and then doesn't? Well it's either that or he agreed with her!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
please explain to me what
October 28, 2008 - 15:39 ET by patmac49please explain to me what the heck is a gotcha question,and how come i have never heard of it in all my years of following politics until sarah palin came on the scene..i meas it seamed like a legit question to me and a good number of people here were able to answer and we are not running for vp
excuse me patman?
October 28, 2008 - 16:11 ET by candanceDemocrats were crying about gotcha questions during their primaries.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/18/politics/main4026917.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4026917
Try again.
Mighty Mouth
October 26, 2008 - 21:08 ET by shawn228Please give me a break. If you want me to chase down links I will prove it, but I believe your the one that saw no difference in pediphilia and gay sex, but at the same time your trying to differentiate between bombing innocent people?
He's got my vote
Well shawn aren't you a
October 26, 2008 - 21:16 ET by MightyMouthWell shawn aren't you a member of the party that doesn't believe these things should be considered "Terrorist Attacks" but instead treated as criminal justice problems? If not, why are real terrorists captured on forigen battlefields, being treated to our criminal justice system?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM
October 26, 2008 - 21:20 ET by shawn228Please don't assume anything about my party, because i'm voting for McCain, also please do not deflect the question and go back your usual tactic of tit for tat with the Dems, why shouldn't anyone bombing innocent people be labeled as a terrorist?
He's got my vote
Read my posts to candance above.
October 26, 2008 - 21:29 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sigh mighty mouth
October 26, 2008 - 21:33 ET by shawn228If you can dance with Stars as well as dancing around questions you would be a star. I'm not talking about equal or not. Is anyone that bombs innocent people a terrorist? Yes or No?
He's got my vote
No!
October 26, 2008 - 21:53 ET by MightyMouthAnd you probably meant "is everyone who bombs...".
Example: Hit man plants C-4 in targets car (a bomb, right). Boom he is a murder and had a specific person to kill.
5 Islamic radicals hijack a plane and fly it into a building in New York city, they are Terrorists. Hippys make pipe bombs and set off at Pentagon, Capital for political reasons: Terrorists all.
Guy trys to blow up an abortion clinic (usually not trying to hurt anyone btw) although a dumbass, would not rise to the level of a terrorist in my mind. Probably a pschyo, or wacko but calling him a "terrorist" is'nt really being fair to real terrorists.
It's simple symantics, lets got to wiki:
Terrorist
Murder
Abortion Bomber
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
OMG Mighty Mouth
October 26, 2008 - 21:57 ET by shawn228"Guy trys to blow up an abortion clinic (usually not trying to
hurt anyone btw) although a dumbass, would not rise to the level of a terrorist in my mind".
I'm not sure if you mean if the abortion clinic is empty, but if people are actually in abortion clinic and the bombs go off and not trying to hurt anybody, what are they doing? trying to scare them away with a few bottle rockets and cherry bombs?
He's got my vote
Sorry you cant see the point.
October 26, 2008 - 22:06 ET by MightyMouthFeel free to call everyone who bombs, commits arson, murder, rape, mugging, gang violence a "Terrorist" all you want. I think they (the real terrorists) prefer that the word gets diluted.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Again dancing around the question MM
October 26, 2008 - 22:24 ET by shawn228you stated if someone bombs aborton clinic, their intention is not to hurt anyone, I asked for clarification and now not only are you talking about bombers, your including rape, mugging, gang violence as well.
I've been told you are one of the best debaters on this site, but I see conservative version of Rhayes
He's got my vote
As I said above..
October 26, 2008 - 22:39 ET by MightyMouth...this is an agrument of symantics
If you will search the wiki link for Abortion Bomber I gave; you will find only one reference to "Terrorists" and that one is trying to streach the definition just like you are. Now my last word on this is: you can call anyone you want a terrorist and equate any act you want to "terrorism", that is your right, but I think you minimize the word when you do so. And I think you could cut Palin some slack on this one.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
you are not getting a yes or
October 28, 2008 - 15:44 ET by patmac49you are not getting a yes or know here..some people believe that terrorism refers to some one elses cause,not theirs..and i believe ANYONE who sets a bomb underANY curcumstance is guilty of attempted murder..
Sarah Palin said
October 26, 2008 - 21:40 ET by IamTinmanShe would not condone abortion clinic bombing. She would not make a comparison with the Ayers bombings and in that she is correct as the two are apples and oranges. The only reason the left leaning responders on this blog refuse to get it is that they simply don't want to.
Barack Obama despite his protestations did indeed associate with terrorists. Sarah Palin has not been accused of associating with clinic bombers to my knowledge.
This is just one more cheap shot by the media and the hyenas of the looney left, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
excuse me tinman?
October 26, 2008 - 21:46 ET by candanceLeft leaning responders like me, Shy, and Shawn?
And Free Stinker
October 26, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Free StinkerAnd Free Stinker ?
"Dewey defeats Truman!" --Chicago Tribune, 1948
and me .... somethings you
October 26, 2008 - 21:56 ET by dark_dsand me .... somethings you just dont nuance ... nothing is gained ....she should have said yes they are terrorists and I WOULD NOT knowingly sit on a board with them
when your candidate makes
October 26, 2008 - 21:58 ET by dark_dswhen your candidate makes a mistake just say it ....
If any of you have hurt feelings, I'm genuinely sorry.
October 26, 2008 - 22:38 ET by IamTinmanThat last paragraph was aimed at Brian Williams for the cheap shot question.
It was just like the book banning question. and the rape kit questions, just another of a series of slams designed to lower Palin in the eyes of the undecided voters.
That's why there is a new allegation every day. It could have been answered better but the intent of the answer is obvious.
Tin man my feelings arent
October 26, 2008 - 22:52 ET by dark_dsTin man my feelings arent hurt .. it was a gotcha question and she should have answered with out any nuance thats all ....she is learning the hard way how brutal the media can be when they a person in their sights ... I think all politcal supporters should just be real when thier candidate makes a mistake .. like with Obama saying he would meet without preconditions ...... if Obama and his supporters would have just said that was mistake to say that ...or when he said Ayers was justa guy in the neighborhood ... but instead they spin it .....hoping people are stupid .. some are but not all
I agree with the Tinman
October 27, 2008 - 09:02 ET by lotrI agree with the Tinman.
It was a cheap-shot question, one designed to put that "radical anti-abortionist woman" on the defensive, and one to remind folks of those radical Christian terrorists out there (just like Rosie said...).
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Tinman
October 26, 2008 - 21:59 ET by RESTLESS 1Bombing abortion clinics, assaulting workers, intimidating patients, no matter how much we hate abortions, are terrorist acts. The McCain campaign should have known such a question as the one Williams asked was coming. There is no excuse for Palin not just saying "yes" and moving on.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
She said she would not condone abortion Clinic bombing.
October 26, 2008 - 22:25 ET by IamTinmanThat seems to be simple enough for the average person to understand without resorting to an oversimplistic answer especially since it was so obvious what Williams was attempting to do. It wasn't a perfect answer but I'm not sure what that would have been.
I believe that Williams had another gotcha question loaded up if she said yes. A question that wouldn't allow her to move on. Something equating the Ayers/ clinic bombers getting long and involved and thereby losing the focus of the viewer. Williams will be back the next day, but Palin only has a small slice of time to make contact with the audience and complex explanations don't keep that level of attention.
Or maybe I'm wrong and I'm the only person in the universe to understand that she doesn't condone clinic bombing. But I don't think so.
C'mon
October 26, 2008 - 22:50 ET by RESTLESS 1You're being ridiculous. No one is saying she condones abortion clinic bombings. She simply flubbed the answer some, and in all of her training for the debate, someone on McCain's staff might have wanted to lob a question like this, especially seeing the attention the right places on the obama/ayers friendship, (and rightly so).
As soon as ayers was brought up, someone somewhere should have been prepared for the "abortion bombers are terrorists too" claim from the obama surrogates. All I am saying is, someone dropped the ball.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
You're talking about the McCain staff here.
October 26, 2008 - 23:05 ET by IamTinmanThese are the same folks who took federal campaign funding and expected Obama to do the same. No negative advertising, accepted the debate formats, these are not forward thinkers.
Tinman
October 27, 2008 - 18:20 ET by RESTLESS 1We defintitely agree on the McCain campaign.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Boycott the YELLOWSTREAM MEDIA
October 26, 2008 - 23:10 ET by MinutemenI'm amazed Sarah still continues to dally with corrupt anti-American propagandists like Williams, Couric, and Gibson in the yellowstream media. She should be able get her message out without having to submit to such outrageous insults, baiting, and defamation. If she were my relative, some "newspeople" would have facial fractures by now. Many conservative men have become so feminized, overcivilized, desensitized, timid, and pacified, they are incapable throwing a punch when it's due. A lot of bad boy bullies can be stopped with the early serving of a knuckle sandwich. With those guys, talking never accomplishes anything.
Give Williams a Break
October 26, 2008 - 22:50 ET by pbthinkerIf Brian Williams conducted the same style interview with Obama, he'd be called a racist. Now, he can only be called ignorant and a sexist. Once again, he will only be called that by people in his profession, who are too busy covering up for Obama to call any of their own anything. Once again, the MSM gets to do their thing and not be called on it.
If Republicans got the same press the Democrats have, Democrats would never win an election.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Palin should have answered,
October 26, 2008 - 22:53 ET by pbthinkerNo, Mr. Williams, I think they're both wrong. However, if John McCain had been friends with an abortion clinic bomber, started his campaign in his house, served on boards with him, etc. my guess is people like you would be asking for his head right now.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
I guess a non-story is better
October 27, 2008 - 08:32 ET by NorthCoasterthan the truth. Wher are all of the Stories on the real bombers? Come on Brian!! You make up stuff to paint a propaganda picture of Sarh Palin without any factual fabric, yet ignore the real stories. surrounding OBAMA!!!!
Brian,
Will there ever be anything but Leftist propaganda generated from your show?
»→ Bombers
October 27, 2008 - 08:38 ET by Cool ArrowBill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Timothy McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph are soulmates.
And Barack Obama would find himself at home with any of them. Obama has raised them all to a level of prestige with in his camp.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Mr. Williams should know that there is a definition of terrorism
October 27, 2008 - 14:00 ET by retroconActually, anyone who plants a bomb is not necessarily a "terrorist."
Terrorism is defined as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
So, Sarah is correct, it is not without question that the abortion clinic bomber is a "terrorist."
If a person is just an angry person who hates abortion and anyone doing it, and they bomb a clinic or clinics, they are just criminals (murderers if anyone dies). If they are a group of people, or a person systematically blowing up clinics and leaving warnings about stopping abortion and changing public policy, etc., then yes, they would be terrorists.
Ayers, on the other hand, is a terrorist for those very reasons. He was part of a group that was systematically using bombings to incite terror to change the government, coerce the government to change. No question.
i have to disagree..i
October 28, 2008 - 15:52 ET by patmac49i have to disagree..i believe that they are attempting to terroize women from going there...