Dana Perino: Obama is playing politics by not calling the Ft. Hood massacre "terrorism"

[ck4829]

Looking past the obvious (9/11), what would SHE call the anthrax mailings, the DC sniper, and Jim Adkisson walking into a church and killing 2 and wounding 7 people because of it's "liberalism" then?

And why is Dana Perino not saying that there have been two terrorist attacks under Obama, one being Ft. Hood, and the other being Scott Roeder killing George Tiller?

[napi21]

1. Sorry Dana, but even Professor Turley said this was mass murder!

Some people don't understand what terrorism really is.

[madrchsod]

2. ".....bubble headed bleach blonde...."

please don`t speak!..please don`t speak!

[johnfunk]

8. See my illustrated comment below. You're on the mark!

:evilgrin:

[HughMoran]

3. Who gave this ignorant moran a mic?

typical ignorant Republican jackass

[jimshoes]

4. Does anyone take this

bobblehead seriously? :shrug:

[elehhhhna]

5. do they trot her out to make Palin look smart by comparison? geeez.

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. Dana Perino is playing politics by demanding Obama call the Ft. Hood massacre "terrorism"

If the media had a Liberal Bias(tm), Perino would not be on it.

[johnfunk]

7. Dana Peroxide is playing politics by saying there were no tairist attacks during the Bush Regime

Separated at birth:

Dana Perino…


… and Bubble from the British comedy series Absolutely Fabulous?

You be the judge!

ON EDIT: Yes, she said it!

[madrchsod]

25. i see you are an ab-fab fan....yup-seperated at birth

[niyad]

9. to what post did obama just appoint this vapid little idiot?

[Lasher]

10. Broadcasting Board of Governors

I've never understood why Obama seems so fond of putting foxes in henhouses.

[guitar man]

14. well, you know the old saying

"keep your friends close and your enemas closer"

;)

[Igel]

21. It's a nice place to marginalize people.

In any event, it was a repub position.

[Lasher]

22. Thanks.

I did not know that as I'm sure you could tell.

[mmonk]

11. Reverse logic! I like it. It will work in America.

[Iggo]

12. He's playing politics by not doing what you want him to do, Dana.

And I'm loving every minute of it.

[DontTreadOnMe]

13. Obama is one of Dana's biggest supporters

"But we have to bend over backwards with bipartisanship" -- Obama

[bdamomma]

15. shut up Dana Purina!!!

[Historic NY]

16. Its a criminal act Dana..

[gratuitous]

17. This is the former press secretary who didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was?

Oooh, let's all listen to her!

[niceypoo]

18. Tell us Dana, are abortion clinic bombings terrorism?

[LeftHander]

19. We can only play in the Republican sandbox....if you don't you are poopy....nt

[branders seine]

20. she also said (on Hannity)

that there were no terrorist attacks under bush. hannity agreed.

[Igel]

23. Semantic games.

We all play them. When it suits us, something's terrorism. When it doesn't, it's not. It's hard to say it's not when there's a note and the intent to cause terror is explicit.

McVeigh? Wasn't explicit. DC sniper? Roeder? Adkisson? Anthrax? Not explicit. As far as I can see in many of the cases I can assume that the goal was simply to kill the enemy--however the people defined it--and not to terrorize observers otherwise unaffected.

Of course, in 9/11 the intent wasn't very explicit, at least not to those not paying attention. It also appears to be intended to cripple Wall Street, which makes it even more of a military action. Of course, part of the reason some say it couldn't be terrorism is because they can't connect the dots between OBL's and Zawahri's dicta and events. The connection isn't made undeniably clear, beyond any doubt that can be ginned up, so it can't exist.

This is different from making a threat if some action isn't done--close the girls schools or we'll bomb your market. Back off out of Waziristan or the federal investigatory office will be bombed. Stop your research or you'll get a letter bomb.

So with Roeder, McVeigh, John Muhammed, and many many other cases--including Hasan--the question is, Was the intent to intimidate others in order to change policy? Or was the intent merely to kill or be killed? When we start playing "let's attribute intent" we sometimes can base our decision on evidence, but much more often we try to base the evidence on our decision--we slight evidence of intent in order to make something that's not politically or "ethically" palatable seem less egregious and more a personal vendetta.

In other cases we simply redefine terrorism as requiring the participation of a group. Kill Jews in Washington because of Israeli actions, kill people in the Empire State building because you want justice for the Palestinians, kill Jews in LA because they're somehow connected to Israel, and intent--even if explicit--can't matter because the definition of choice requires us to ask, "Was this a lone wolf or part of a larger organization or conspiracy?" and the answer is "no" in all these cases.

First, define terrorism well and make the distinction between lone gunman or organization both explicit and consistent. Second, define metrics for judging if the available evidence of intent is necessary and sufficient. Until then, "terrorism" expresses emotion more than it expresses a logical truth-valid proposition.

[chollybocker]

26. Yes, the Queen of Semantics has found herself a new throne.

Have any other members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors dropped media bombs like this recently? Why does she even have a microphone pressed in her face at all?

[EnlightenedOne]

24. Shut your pie hole Dana.

God, the stupidity is smothering me.... Oh the humanity.

[johnfunk]

27. On second thought, keep talkin' Dana -- your idiocy helps destroy the GOP...

:evilgrin:

[Nikki Stone1]

28. + 1

.