Sarah Palin isn't sure if abortion clinic bombers are "terrorists"

spall, you forgot "C"! Let me help ya out (wink wink) C) She didn't want to open up the possibility that people would start pointing out McCain's involvement with fundraising for the Oregon Citizens Alliance and his affiliations with Marylin Shannon, who obviously thinks that it's wonderful we commit terrorist acts in the name of God. "It seems that in 1993, John McCain was the keynote speaker at a fundraising banquet for the Oregon Citizens Alliance, the notorious anti-gay organization that was causing all sorts of trouble in Oregon in the 1990s. McCain quickly got a first-hand flavor for the OCA. Marylin Shannon, the vice chairwoman of the Oregon GOP, had a spot on the program to give an opening prayer. In short order, she praised the Grants Pass woman accused of shooting an abortion doctor in Wichita and thanked the Lord ``for Lon Mabon and the vision you put in his heart.'' Let's check that again. Marilyn Shannon praises a terrorist who shot a doctor while introducing John McCain, and not only does he stay, he stands up and gives a fundraising address for these terrorist-lovers?" HMMM....I think that says it all.

Because she's a politician. It's disease they all suffer from, and I think it is a prerequisite for nomination. Lash

Aren't we quick to judge? Her question didn't seem to bash Palin at all. She only seemed to want to understand what logic Palin was using by stating that bombing an abortion clinic is not a form of terrorism. I don't know where you're getting your definition of terrorism, but terrorism is technically the use of violence or the threat of violence against CIVILIANS in order to attain religious, ideological, OR political goals. The first definition of the word "terrorize" was first recorded in the year 1823 and was defined as "coercing or deterring by terror". Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary of LAW defines terrorism as both "the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion" and "violent and intimidating gang activity". The bombing of an abortion center would consistute as an unlawful use of violence against the public and it can be considered a politically motivated attack to coerce people into behaving in the attacker's desired way. Palin is somewhat irrelevant here, but she is the one who said it.

Taskr, so you think the reason Palin wasn't sure if you'd call abortion clinic bombers terrorist is because she's very aware of the legal definition of "terrorism" and couldn't at that moment commit to an answer? Yeah. She didn't want to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists because she's pro-life, and even if she does actually think abortion clinic bombing is an act of terrorism, she's already screwed up enough times saying things that go against the Republican platform she probably was afraid to do it again. Plus as others have said, she was stuck on making this about Bill Ayers, and couldn't get away from that. I cannot believe the way people will continue to defend this woman when she has time and time again said things that are woefully ignorant for anybody who is running for Vice President of the United States. Not only that but she denies reality, or else just plain lies, and she is increasingly starting to sound like she's running against John McCain rather than with him. The only people who support Palin as VP are those who agree with her right wing policies, and many of them have openly admitted that she isn't qualified to be VP. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to vote for Obama, but intelligent, honest Republicans are coming out in droves saying Palin was a bad choice and McCain should have chosen someone else. Why are there still those few who insist on denying the obvious and claim she's intelligent and just some kind of "victim" of liberal attacks?

Where precisely did you derive your "legal" definition of terrorism? You seem to be claiming that yyou've studied law, and I'll do you the curtesy (with some reservations) od assuming that you have, in which case I might accept that ONE of the legal definitrions of an act of terror is targeting governemnt buildings, but it is far from the only definition. Terrorism is in fact defined as "the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion", and most definitions include acts carried out to create fear to bring about an ideological goal, and carry also the connotation of targeting non-combatants (innocent bystanders). None of the definitions I have seen specify or restrict the act of terrorism to attacking government buildings, and as a PhD in the social sciences I have had plenty of opportunity to have done so. Anti-abortion beliefs are indeed, by any deinition, an ideological stance. Bombing abortion clinics is indeed designed to create fear in the service of that ideological stance. Innocent bystanders (like those at the clinic for non-abortive procedures and examinations just to mention a few) are demonstrably put at risk by these acts. That will do me for a definition of terrorism applying to abortion clinic bombings. I am not an American, and therefore do not support either the Republican or Democratic causes. So, to a certain extent Palin's election would not greatly affect me - except, as a fellow Aussie has said in this discussion, from what I've seen of her debates and interviews on Australian current affairs programs, I would tend to be a bit terrified at the thought that she could easily end up in charge. The US influence over what happens in my country makes that a scary thing. But if that makes me a Palin basher, it's because I have considered what she has said and made up my mind she's an extraordinarily bad choice, not because of any particular ideological stance on my part. McCain seems to be a fairly reasonable person, but I worry about his age and the possibility he could die in office. Lash

Can you provide a link or source for saying that smoking pot equals terrorist? Again, there is yet another definition for terrorist when it comes to investigators, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc. Come on! Are y'all THAT disingenuous or that misinformed? Which is it? Anyone who has grown up in the US, for sure, would know that a legal definition, dictionary definition, and security/espionage definition are NOT going to be the same. It's more ludicrous to claim Palin is OK with people bombing abortion clinics than it is to claim Obama is a Muslim. He really could be a Muslim (I don't think he is, but it is within the realm of possibility). It is within the realm of possibility that Palin is OK with bombings of abortion clinics, but it is so UNLIKELY it is ludicrous. You think it is impossible for Obama to get "this far" without a birth certificate, but you think Palin could get as far as she has by supporting bombings? Of course she doesn't support or approve or excuse bombings of abortion clinics, and she said she doesn't, very clearly.

I think I agree with Zephyr that she was sticking to her talking points. I think when this came up in the interview she accessed the Bill Ayers file in her brain and repeated stuff that's in there, rather than LISTENING TO the question. She's done this before, like when Katie Couric asked her the mind bogglingly simple question "What magazines and newspapers do you read" and she couldn't name one. That wasn't covered in her memorized talking points so she couldn't come up with anything.

you are right, they are a small portion of her followers..however they are ALL Pro-Life..IF she had labeled them as domestic terrorists, she would have put out a general label of terrorist to anybody who is Pro-Life(not everybody would feel that way, but the media would have snapped it up and run with it like that). and she DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT. thats exactly why she didnt say it..even though abortion clinic bombers ARE domestic terrorists. she was trying very hard to walk that line without saying anything that could be put together as Pro-Life = terrorist. "How can you sit there and accuse ProLife people as being a "good number of her voters" because a majority of her voters ARE pro-life..i DID NOT SAY THAT THEY ARE ALL TERRORISTS. i was simply saying what would have been grabbed and run with by the media..they would have shortened the headline to "Pro-Life = terrorist" IF for no other reason than to cause an uproar..like everything else.

I understand what you're saying. It sounded like you thought most or all pro lifers are bombers! I agree that the media would have snapped up almost anything she said and misrepresented it. Better to misrepresent what she ended up saying than alienate the Conservatives who are her base.

I ABSOLUTELY RESENT THIS POST, CINDER! The other posts are pretty off and petty, but this one takes the cake! How can you sit there and accuse ProLife people as being a "good number of her voters" . I am PRO LIFE. Before Roe vs Wade ever happened, I was a kid in jr high, and doing mock (children's) campaigns, because I knew even then that life is LIFE and you protect it at all costs, no matter what. However, I am not at all a terrorist or bomber, and indeed I have historically shown great sympathy and empathy for women who have abortions. I can easily understand all their reasons, but I also know they have been misled into believing that they did not end a life, but just a "clump of cells". People who bomb abortion clinics are a TINY MINORITY of people who are ProLife. Period. You insult a huge section of the population by implying that all of us support bombing, or that Palin supports bombing. Palin has been grilled, insulted, lied about repeatedly, laughed at, scrutinized, and more, from Day 1! She does GREAT when speaking on her own, and when interviewed by an responsible interviewer who is not TRYING to trip her up. I can excuse her slip ups when she is under stress, and under a kind of underhanded attack, considering how quickly she was thrust into this intense limelight, AND IMMEDIATELY attacked -- no one even waited to see what she is about. They just viciously attacked her and her family. Even Obama said it was not right. Do you think you could go thru all she has been thru in the last few months and never slip up out of nerves? You cannot do a debate as well as the one she had with Biden and use talking points only. She had to know what she was talking about. She is used to the very, very laid back culture of Alaska. And not the intellectual elite that Obama hangs with. But that doesn't mean she is stupid or doesn't know what she's talking about. Joe Biden messed up, made mistakes on his facts MORE during their debate than Palin. Biden even tried to make a point against Cheney about the VP duties and he was WRONG. Palin's description was right. But you don't hear that, because the main media just doesn't call Obama or Biden on ANY of their lies or mistakes. They just harp on Palin unfairly. If you look at her real record instead of sound bites, you will find she did a great job as governor and she has an 80% approval rating -- Dems like her too. (They don't like her NOW because they are Dems, for Obama, but they loved her as their Governor). She is a very bright woman, who happens to have a very homey, laid back manner of speaking and she has REAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS to her credit. I think TSKR hit it on the head: she didn't know the exact legal definition and she didn't want to say it wrong. She DID NOT agree or support bombings of abortion clinics. Of course, she is doomed either way, because no matter what she said it would be taken as wrong. And TSKR is also correct that legal definitions are not the same as a dictionary definition. I don't have to be a lawyer to know that; everyone should know that.