Given this, we have an organized group of activists who feel justified killing American physicians and bombing hundreds of doctors' offices on U.S. soil because they don't like a legal, medical procedure. "I don't know if you're gonna use the word 'terrorist' there." Why, pray tell, not?

Because it isn't meant to coerce society or the government. It's directed at the clinic.

Bombing an unrelated target and threatening more if abortion isn't made illegal...
The bombing is a direct action towards the persons responsible for their grievance.

It still sucks, but it isn't terrorism.

As for your definition of terrorism, can you imagine any acts of violence aimed at coercing government being judged "lawful"?

When Bush started jailing people without charge claiming they were "unlawful combatants" I wondered how one could register as a "lawful combatant" so I wouldn't just disappear one day like people do in other banana Republics run by petty filthy despots.

I found no details on the procedure. When Republicans must define their terms, they get VERY uncomfortable. They like flexibility in everything but morals. In which case, it's THEIRS or damnation.

Sarah,

Terrorism isn't about destroying buildings and killing.

It's about our political reaction to the destruction of buildings and the killing.

Is it a good point to mention, that if you oppose abortion, then in order to be even slightly consistent, it's necessary to oppose preemptive warfare? If you claim to be pro-life then you need to be consistent. But then again, were discussing terrorists, so it's unlikely that they'd be interested in such nuance.

Ummm, "it's unacceptable and it would not be condoned on our watch" sounds like condemnation to me... not sure there's a story here...

I would suppose it all comes down to this: What is the purpose of the bombing? If it's to close that clinic, then it's "just" violence. If it's to intimidate other abortion providers to stop doing so -- if it's meant to convince other doctors to drop the procedure -- then it's terrorism, as the person is using terror to achieve an end.

Given what I've seen, I think abortion-clinic bombings definitely count as "terrorism" in that light.

Ummm, "it's unacceptable and it would not be condoned on our watch"...

Playing baseball on steroids is unacceptable and would not be condoned on our watch. Bombing abortion clinics is terrorism.

Weary: but it isn't terrorism.

I disagree. An individual or organization bombing a clinic has the ultimate goal of coercing the government into making abortion illegal. We can safely assume that they wanted other doctors and patients to be fearful of going to other clinics as well. The 9/11 hijackers selected the WTC and the Pentagon in part as a direct action towards the persons responsible for their grievances. It's still terrorism.

I'll be interested to see what's included in her "policy" speech today, because so far we haven't heard much from her or the old man besides diversions.

"I don't know if you're gonna use the word 'terrorist' there, but it's unacceptable and it would not be condoned on our watch."

Is it just me or is that a pretty weak, soft, responce? "would not be condoned on our watch" sounds more like a stern frown then a "they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." My fear is that it sends the messgage, "We don't approve" which sounds too much like we'll look the other way...which is all some wack-job needs to infer.

On the plus side, the more these two talk, the more extreme, out of touch and left behind they sound. This election has gone beyond electing Barack Obama the person. He's closing the door on the past. People ARE ready for change...and that means an end to the rancorous, suspicious, brutish and fearful right wing world view that has paralyzed the country for too long.

Why does it take so much "reforming" of words and definitions to label themselves the "reformers"? Why does it take such a crooked path of words to achieve straight talk?

>but it's unacceptable and it would not be condoned on our watch."

That's the scariest part - the fact that this even needs to be said.

It really sounds like she is sending a message to people she knows... "hey, guys, you know I'm your girl but you have to behave yourself while I consolidate my power".

I'm sure somebody could dig up similar quotes at similar points in their careers from your random African dictator-thug like Idi Amin.

Surely you don't think that during her "ferocious reading sessions" Scarah picks up a dictionary? As to McShame sitting silently by...it was probably time for his mini-nap and he's happy to let her TAKE OVER...something I'm betting we'll see creeping in more and more...Funny as the SNL skit last night was it should TERRIFY voters to consider 16 years into Palin's view of the future!

Because it isn't meant to coerce society or the government. It's directed at the clinic.

You've got to be kidding me. They are trying to coerce people away from the clinic, from using the clinic. They are trying to coerce society into a certain political point of view.

And this will get what % of coverage as Ayers?

This is not hard. One Abortion loving Brian William's terrorist is another Godly Alaskan evangelical governor's freedom fighter.

@weary

Your dismissiveness of the bombing or clinics and the killing of doctors and clinic workers is breathtaking.

I've worked at those clinics so let me tell you something - those protestors that physically assault clinic employees and patients, call in bomb threats and have actually bombed clinics, intimidate and sometimes kill doctors - they are terrorists and they do engage in acts of terrorism.

@weary

Your dismissiveness of the bombing or clinics and the killing of doctors and clinic workers is breathtaking.

I've worked at those clinics so let me tell you something - those protestors that physically assault clinic employees and patients, call in bomb threats and have actually bombed clinics, intimidate and sometimes kill doctors - they are terrorists and they do engage in acts of terrorism.

When is one of the interviewers going to press McCain on just exactly what part of the association with Ayers has Obama not explained? Why does McCain always get in the last (and exactly the same) words on this? If McCain has more of the story then he should quit the innuendo and just say what he really thinks. The press is giving McCain a huge pass on this whole "issue".

Of course it's meant to coerce society. It's meant to scare all clinics, doctors/employees, and women who might use them and not just the one clinic. Anyone who doesn't see that is a moron, like Palin.

If one was to say that it was simply targeting the clinic then nothing is terrorism. For example, 9/11 they were simply targeting the WTC and the Pentagon not trying to coerce society or the government.

It still sucks, but it isn't terrorism.

Nonsense. Talking to some of the victims, and families of victims, and with other abortion providers to see the effects of the bombings on them, should cure you of that misconception.

Not to belabour a point but...terrorists can't be white.

Tim McVeigh is never referred to as a terrorist, he's referred to as "Tim McVeigh". The White House won't talk to countries that offer tacit approval of Hamas and Hezbollah, but have no problem speaking with the Republic of Ireland, or Sinn Fein even...

terrorist = other = not white.

(that and a large segment of her base supports abortion bombers)

I guess to Palin, abortion clinic bombings are just vandalism. Isn't she adorable?

Goodness, I cannot wait until November 5.

P.S. that's why the Ayers thing never got any real traction...he's white. As soon as they started showing his face in ads, any efficacy was destroyed.

McCain opposed legislation in 1994 to make bombing abortion clinics a federal crime, and has appeared at events where "Christian warriors" justify the use of violence in the attempt to stop abortions. That doesn't make him a coddler of terrorists, but it indicates a severe double standard which does not reflect mainstream views in America today.

If medical clinics were regularly bombed over the last five years in Iraq, what word would the media use to describe the attackers? "I'm Tom Brokaw. A bomb was set off outside a clinic in mosul today by radical -- well, not terrorists -- but, you know, by people motivated by fundamentalist religious ideology who view violence as a means to intimidate the citizenry and coerce the government. But NOT by terrorists."

It's absurd. OF COURSE they're terrorists! It's CHRISTIAN TERRORISM. But since it's a weed that was grown in our own backyard garden, wackos like Palin parse the word for fear of doing anything to upset the rabid anti-abortion fetus pornographers that make up a significant part of her base.

The 1960's attacks were against government. Maybe Ayers was an insurgent, but not a terrorist. The point of terrorism is to create fear among the population that is way beyond the actual threat, and infuses ordinary activities with fear and mistrust.

There is only one Pentagon. It was obvious who the targets were. Even the Oklahoma City bombing, as horrible as it was, was not terrorism.

Her loophole is "engage in harming innocent Americans." She doesn't believe abortion clinic workers are innocent, so it's OK to bomb them.

How interesting that anti-abortion terrorism is the topic of this post today. This day marks the 10th anniversary of the murder of Buffalo OBGYN physician Barnett Slepian, who was shot to death in his kitchen in the presence of his family, by an anti-abortion terrorist. What other name for these fanatical assassins could be more fitting?

You cite evidence that Republican leader McCain brands domestic abortion bombers as terrorists, then you claim a double standard on Republicans for not identifying abortion bombers as terrorists.

A couple of points:
1) In fairness to McCain, later in the interview he does make a more forceful denouncement of the clinic bombings.
2) @ lou. You are very right to note McShame always makes a point of getting his innuendo in no matter what.
3) @ tooweary. Abortion clinic bombings are THE very definition of terrorism. Shame on you.

Bombing an unrelated target and threatening more if abortion isn't made illegal...
The bombing is a direct action towards the persons responsible for their grievance.

It still sucks, but it isn't terrorism.

Well, Sarah, please inform the Justice Department of that. They consider ELF and animal rights activists who bomb laboratories experimenting on animals and bombing house construction terrorists.

They're also bombing as a direct action towards the persons responsible for their grievances, so under your definition, they're not terrorists.

What's with the smirk on McCain's face the whole time she's talking? This idiot thinks it's funny that she's actually a candidate for vice president and that he can no longer pretend to having a shred of integrity? Is it hilarious to him that his running mate is basically sitting there playing wink-wink at domestic terrorists? Hope he's enjoying himself, because his future's going to be decidedly less comical. Asshole.

Brian Williams uses the Repub's own long-time wedge issue against them, causing C. Barbie to show her true colors.

Kudos to you Mr. Williams.

It does appear that there is some discrepancy between how violence enacted for right wing causes are labeled differently than those enacted for left wing causes. Abortion clinic bombers, ecoterrorists, militias, domestic terrorists, Christian identity groups ... not hard to guess which end of the spectrum each are identified with.

@Mattyoung

ThinkProgress states McCain has "repeatedly voted against protecting Americans from domestic terrorists carrying out violence at abortion clinics."

You have it backwards. McCain voted AGAINST protecting Americans FROM domestic terrorists. Check out the ThinkProgress link for the specifics on the legislation McCain voted AGAINST.

McCain most assuredly does not "brand domestic abortion (clinic) bombers as terrorists." Perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension.

"that's why the Ayers thing never got any real traction...he's white."

I actually suspect that there might be something to that. Republicans have worked so hard at portraying every brown guy with a towel on his head and a beard as a scary terrorist that when folks see Ayers it really just never connects. If he was at least a scary black guy, it might have some impact; but Ayers just doesn't look terroristy by the standards they've given us. Looks like conservative love for racial profiling hits yet another snag.

(BTW, I realize the "towel on head" thing isn't appropriate, but I'm just going with their description.)

Isn't that adorable? Two talking pigs!

It's not so much that Caribou Valley Girl's dodging the 'are abortion bombers terrorists' question; it's that she's dodging the question so badly.

-Z

I can't stop watching body language long enough to hear what's coming out of their mouths sometimes, and have to wonder if McCain is suffering a slow death feeling, cringing every time Sarah speaks, and that is mixed with a strange and uneasy fixation of her exposed legs.

Did Brian Williams ask her to define "innocent Americans"? That's the follow-up question I'd like to have heard her answer.

Terrorists? Silly liberal, those are Real Americans!

There is something that struck me at the time and bothered me. It bothers me that no one has remarked upon it here. As Palin finished her non-answer about what defines a terrorist, McCain jumped in with more of his angry old man talk about Ayers, although Ayers wasn't important (he says). What was REALLY on McCain's mind and was all that mattered to him, in my view, was THAT particular terrorist who McCain believes he can use to serve his ends. That's all he was focused on at that moment: hammering Obama with a man McCain himself admits isn't important, although clearly more important than the discussion at hand with Brain Williams.

Didn't this strike anyone else?

Sarah Palin: "...it's unacceptable and it would not be condoned on our watch..."

She could have used the same words about the problem that some have with high fructose corn syrup. It's unacceptable and would not be condoned? Good God.

What on earth would be the objective of bombing an abortion clinic if not to terrorize those who work there, or go there for services? What would be the point of the OK City bombing if not to terrorize people? Good grief.

via his own admittance

When will this stupid, stupid woman please, please stop torturing the English language?

Because it isn't meant to coerce society or the government. It's directed at the clinic.

Sorry, but I've got to join the chorus of "Whaaa?" Bombing something that you want to make the government to make illegal in the hope that you'll be able to force the government to make it illegal isn't terrorism?

As TuiMel pointed out, by your definition, Oklahoma City wasn't a terrorist bombing because McVeigh bombed the people he was angry at (the ATF office) and didn't bomb an unrelated target.

Shorter Palin on domestic terrorists:

Bill Ayers a terrorist? "There is no question there."

Abortion clinic bombers terrorists?: "I don't know."

Anybody who still considers voting for this ticket should hang their heads in shame.