He asks, "Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?" This tells me that a non-standard definition of the word has been proposed before the clip begins. Perhaps an odd legal interpretation or some such.

Can't condemn her answer when I don't know the whole question.

Palin: "<continued from video>...but it's unacceptable, and it would not be condoned, of course, on our watch, but...I don't know if what you're asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist...I don't regret characterizing him as that."

Brian Williams: "I'm just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers, protesters in cities where fires were started, molotov cocktails were thrown, people died?"

Palin: "I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to campaign to destroy our United States Capitol, and our Pentagon, and would seek to destroy innocent Americans."

--
Adding the word "innocent" certainly changes the tone of her message. Does that mean she thinks anybody in an abortion clinic is not innocent? She is so good at skirting the question. I don't think she's given a solid answer yet.

>> ^RedSky:
The cut is pretty suspicious.


I agree that in no way sounded like she was finished speaking... Don't get me wrong... I say we keep handing the woman rope... Does ANYONE really feel like the rest of that interview would have somehow clarified or rationalized her statments... Just the same... credibility hit for not being able to see it.

>> ^gorillaman:
You people draw your morality in crayon.
The idiots who bomb abortion clinics are animals, and they should be executed, but their tactics would be perfectly legitimate if their cause was legitimate.


wha-ha-ot?

So its someones cause, which is in essence personal opinion which defines whether something is legitimate (in what? in America? To you? To Inuit's?)

wonder what she'd think if we discovered that the 9/11 hijackers weren't interested in destroying our financial and military buildings after all.

what if their real target was a hypothetical abortion clinic,
inside the World Trade Center?

"...now others who would want to harm innocent Americans or facilities it would be unacceptable, I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist'."
So, it isn't just abortion clinic bombers that dodge that title. Just make sure whatever you're bombing has no political affiliation and you're not a terrorist!

I think the problem here may just be that she doesn't quite understand the word 'terrorist', she has the gist of it but not the whole picture. Even if she considers abortion to be sinful and wrong her words don't necessarily mean she condones those who bomb abortion clinics.

That being said, she could just as easily condone it. At the very least, I think she probably has mixed feelings about it.

You people draw your morality in crayon.

The idiots who bomb abortion clinics are animals, and they should be executed, but their tactics would be perfectly legitimate if their cause was legitimate.

The definition of "terrorist" is someone who uses fear, intimidation, and/or violence to further their agenda, political or otherwise.

How is an abortion clinic bomber NOT a terrorist?

Or is this a "Guerrilla" vs "Freedom Fighter" pedantic issue? Freedom Fighters fight for causes we agree with, Guerrillas just use the same tactics to fight for causes we don't agree with?

>> ^chilaxe:
"I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist'... Maybe 'political activist' or 'partially misguided warrior for Jeeeeeesus.'"


That was hilarious...!

Guys cut her a break already. She was probably worried about losing the abortion clinic bomber vote.

Grrrrrr. two-faced, nutjob, man I hope she loses.

Edit: someone also has to explain to me how if killing a fetus is not good, then killing a fetus AND a woman by bombing an abortion clinic (there are bound to be MANY in there at any given time) is acceptible?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3D91139F930A25756C0A962958260

The bill covers a wide range of things, making it a capital crime to attack (fatal or not fatal) any thing that is on the property of the clinic. Constitutes it as an act of domestic terrorism.

It also makes it a federal offense to blockade.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE or the Access Act, Pub. L. No. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694) (May 26, 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 248), passed in 1994, prohibits the use of intimidation or physical force to prevent or discourage persons from (A) gaining access to a reproductive health care facility (which most notably includes abortion clinics), or (B) exercising freedom to worship at a religious facility. The law also creates specific penalties for the destruction of, or damage to, a reproductive health care facility or place of religious worship.

What this does is effectivly makes it Illegal to come onto Clinic Property, even if it is not fenced in, this is construed as a Federal Offense.

Sit ins, blockades, or chaining of doors shall not be tolerated under the rule of law.

This bill does take away from the right of protesters to protest. All of the acts that are punishable are acts that infringe upon the safety and protection of the woman's choice.

This law also affords the same protection to places of religion.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/clinic-access/

I don't mind actual attack ads, but this one is soooo flimsy. It's like McCain saying sex ed fund = kindergarten pornography. It's just stupid.

How can you extrapolate the existance of abortion clinic shooters in the 90s to McCain's two votes. What else is in that bill? Was it going to pass anyways? Would a stupid bill that probably restricted freedoms prevent someone from shooting a doctor?

We already have laws. Probably federal laws. WTF does passing more laws ABOUT SHOOTING PEOPLE matter? Just enforce existing laws. So McCain voting NO was a butterfly effect that rippled through extremist groups and caused the shooting... huh? If you actually think there is any validity to this ad, please, please take a long look in the Hope mirror and ask yourself what the ponies and unicorn dreams have done to you. Imagine McCain put out this ad. And if you are a proponent of The Big Lie then fine. If you think this is part of a lie strategy that Obama will repeat often enough until it becomes true than fine. As it is, it's a lame sad lie.

Anyways Jed Lewison is the lowest dirty tricks arm of the Obama 527 web coalition. We have enough Rove's and don't need another wannabe who was ex-Hill staffer.

Abortion clinics, as well as EVERY OTHER PLACE, are already protected by laws.
The libs probably attached a billion dollar grant to study dodo dna.

Gorilla, we're just going to disagree on this forever. My argument is not lame or ineffective. It is not a mistake I should learn from. BOTH arguments are clear and valid. I was trying to be polite by simply agreeing to disagree, but I see that you are not willing to accept such polity. Therefore, it's not worth continuing the discussion.

Some are pro-abortion and some are anti-abortion, don't give me this pro-choise, pro-life BS. If you think Pro-life is an invalid moniker, than Pro-choice is equally invalid. And obviously bombing an abortion clinic is hypocritical and soooo 1985. psh.