Liberalscum Buster

October 26, 2008

BY SARAH PALIN’S DEFINITION, MOHAMAD ATTA IS NOT A TERRORIST

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, hillary clinton, John McCain, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 8:57 pm

BILL AYRES WAS A TERRORIST FOR PROTESTING THE VIETNAM WAR BUT ERIC RUDOLF WAS NOT A TERRORIST FOR BOMBING ABORTION CLINICS?

RJ Eskow Posted October 24, 2008 | 07:03 PM (EST)
But Wait … By Palin’s Definition, Mohamed Atta Isn’t A Terrorist

This campaign gets stranger and stranger — and more and more frightening. Brian Williams asked Sarah Palin a fairly straightforward question, based on her repeated use of the phrase “domestic terrorist” to characterize Bill Ayers. Williams asked: “Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition, Governor?”

Palin tried several evasive maneuvers before alighting on this answer:

“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.”
Forget the tortured syntax for a moment. What is truly and deeply frightening in this exchange is the lengths to which Palin will go to avoid disparaging abortion bombers. She is so desperate not to characterize the Eric Rudolphs of this world as terrorists that she forges a severely narrow definition of the act: You have to target the Capitol or the Pentagon to qualify.

That even lets Mohamed Atta off the hook, since he attacked the World Trade Center. Like the doctor’s offices and medical clinics struck by abortion terrorists, it’s a civilian target. We know that Sarah Palin doesn’t believe that Islamic militants who kill civilians aren’t terrorists. That leaves only one way to interpret these words: She either supports the bombing of abortion clinics or she wants the political support of those who do (and then there’s that reference to “innocent Americans,” which seems to suggest that clinic staff or patients are not innocent).

Can anybody think of another explanation?

Either interpretation would seem to reinforce what I call the black-helicopter theory — that this campaign is deliberately stoking extremism. As for the idea she might have sympathy or at least tolerance toward these attacks — well, let’s hope not. But she had already said these words as she writhed in the unforgiving claws of what should’ve been a straighforward question:

“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.”
So the strongest things she’s willing to say about bomb attacks on abortion clinics (which have caused deaths as well as destruction) is that they’re “unacceptable” and wouldn’t be “condoned.”

I guess that’s something.

So, here we have a Vice Presidential candidate and potential President who has close ties to a separatist party founded by a man with violent hostility toward the U.S. government. She accepts blessing from a “witch-fighting” pastor, when “expelling witches” is its own form of terrorism (witch-hunting may sound quaint to American ears, but it’s a living and hideous practice that claims hundreds if not thousands of women and children each year).

Let’s face it: The $150,000 in clothing, the highly paid make-up artists, the potentially illegal use of Alaskan state funds to fly her family on junkets … all that’s trivial next to the extreme views suggested by these comments. This is not a game of “gotcha” based on a poor choice of words or associations. This is a pattern — the pattern of a deeply disturbing individual, one who is not only unqualified to be President but who also holds some profoundly un-American opinions.

And John McCain chose her — or, more precisely, must take responsibility for her selection. It’s his name on the campaign bus. His acceptance of Palin betrayed stunning indifference to the responsibilities of leadership. That is all we need to know about him.

It’s no wonder the young woman who claimed to have been attacked and mutilated by a large black Obama supporter turns out to have performed the act on herself (which the mirrored “B” on her face should have made obvious). But before the truth was revealed, we’re told she got a phone call from Sarah Palin. This is a campaign that will try turning any lie to its advantage.

Self-mugging: The perfect metaphor for John McCain’s campaign.

Sure, there’s a strange fascination in listening to Sarah Palin speak. Every sentence seems to pass through an surrealistic archway, as if its grammatical rules had been designed by M. C. Escher. Will it turn into a flock of birds, a school of fish, become its own wall or ceiling or stairway? But underneath this tangled skein of language, a picture is beginning to emerge. It’s a frightening picture and an ugly one.

It’s a picture that the most expensive makeup artist in the world can’t hide.

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
    SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

    Comment by Rev. Donald Spitz — October 26, 2008 @ 11:57 pm

  2. The abortion issue is debateable.

    Basically the pro choice people think that abortion should be safe , legal and rare. They condemn abortion as a means of birth control.

    Most of the “Pro-life” people are really pro-birth and do not give a rat’s ass about what happens to the kid once he or she is born. As a man of the cloth, I suspect that your motives are higher than that.

    For the politicians of the Right,it gives them a pretext of rightious indignation without costing anything to their rich sponsors.

    Comment by gasdocpol — October 27, 2008 @ 3:04 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: