Beyond outrage

Up until this … before this outrage … I have thought of Sarah Palin merely as a joke.  Yes, she’s unqualified.  Sure, maybe even a little dangerous.  But all in all, I have considered her more a sick joke played upon the electorate by a cynical Republican party than the outrageous, hateful, despicable and dangerous politican I see her as this morning.  I’ll grant you that I’m running on almost no sleep and am prone to fits of hyperbole, but this from the Brian Williams interview has truly put me over the edge:

Brian Williams: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?

Sarah Palin: (Exasperated sigh.) There’s no question that Bill Ayers by his own admittance was one who thought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There is no question there. 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 gonna use the word “terrorist” there.

In a diary on Daily Kos, Meteor Blades put it best:

Under the pre-Patriot Act definition of the law, William Ayers and many of his compatriots in the Weather Underground certainly qualify as terrorists. Unlike the abortion clinic bombers and assassins, however, subsequent to the townhouse explosion in which three Weathermen blew themselves up in March 1970, the Weathermen gave advance warnings of their attacks.

The anti-choice terrorists didn’t warn Dr. Barnett Slepian and Robert Sanderson (killed in 1998) or Dr. Jack Fainman  and another unnamed physician (wounded in 1997) or Dr. Hugh Short (wounded in 1995) or Dr. John Bayard Britton, James H. Barrett, Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols (killed in 1994) or Dr. Garson Romalis and five others (wounded in 1994) or Dr. David Gunn (killed in 1993) or Dr. George Tiller (wounded in 1993).

Nor did they give warnings in most of the more than 200 clinic bombings and arsons since 1993, the most recent an unsolved case in Albuquerque, N.M., in December 2007.

During the interview, as you can see above, John McCain sits with his hands folded. So does he agree with Palin? Does he interrupt and say anti-choice assassins and bombers are definitely terrorists? No. Can he not use the word “terrorist” when it comes to these murderers? No. Which should come as no surprise, because, 15 years ago, when he was still supposedly a maverick, he twice voted against a law to prohibit blockades, bombings and arsons at abortion clinics.


Many Americans oppose abortion and want Roe v. Wade overturned. They have pursued lawful means to obtain their ends. Extremists have pursued other means, willingly murdering and maiming in their crusade to crush women’s reproductive rights. Most law-abiding anti-choice Americans have condemned these extremists. But neither Sarah Palin nor John McCain will call them what they are. Palin is, in effect, giving these terrorists a wink and a nod. Pro-life, my ass.

I couldn’t agree more.



Filed under Sarah Palin

3 responses to “Beyond outrage

  1. No one has yet established a legal definition for the term, ‘terrorist.’ Since 911, we have used the word to define those islamoterrorists who are for the downfall of Israel and those that support Israel. Only those on the left have developed the politically correct definition of ‘terrorist’ to define those who bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors–acts which should merit a long prison sentence or the death penalty. These are abhorrent acts which most pro-life people condemn. However, you disqualify the objectivity of the article, some of which I agree, with the final two sentences, “Palin is, in effect, giving these terrorists a wink and a nod. Pro-life, my ass.” Especially the last short sentence.

  2. Those babykilling abortionists got what they deserve. Why is it ok for them to murder helpless babies but it’s not ok for someone to protect those babies. You babykilling abortionists are the sickest human beings on the planet earth. How can you murder an unborn baby?

  3. sethkahn

    Good heavens, a Reverend playing God. Killing isn’t “protection.” It’s murder. Even given your belief that an unborn baby is a person, you’re still advocating murder.

    If you think pro-choice people are sick because they commit murder, then you’re just as sick because you advocate murder too. From the perspective of those of us who belief life begins at birth, you’re the only murderer (or advocate of murder) in the equation.

    I feel deeply for the members of your congregation, Reverend. You’re not God, no matter how much you seem to think you are.

    As long as you support murder, you have no right to call yourself “pro-life.”

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s