Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Interview Transcript: Sarah Palin Won't Call Abortion Clinic Bombers Terrorists

In an interview aired tonight between journalist Brian Williams and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Palin repeatedly refused to define as “terrorists” the people who bombed abortion clinic, firebombed clinics, shot doctors and killed nurses.

When you read this transcript of Palin’s remarks, pay special attention to the way that Sarah Palin relies on the adjective “innocent:”

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

Sarah Palin: [Sighs] There’s no question Bill Ayres, under his own admittance, was, um, one who sought to destroy, er, our US Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities, that, uh, er, that would be unacceptable. Uh, I don’t know if you’re going to use the word “terrorist” there, but it’s unacceptable and, uh, um, it, er, would not be condoned, of course, on, on our watch, but [sigh] I don’t know what you’re asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayres 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.

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

At that point John McCain stepped in to interrupt the Sarah Palin and move the conversation in a new direction.

“Innocent”? “Innocent”? Who else qualifies discussions of abortion bombings and shooting doctors in the head with arguments about who is and who is not “innocent”? Oh, right:

Since 1993 some members of the anti-abortion movement began ascribing to the belief that assaults against abortion doctors could be “justifiable homicide.” The philosophy of the movement evolved in the late 1980s from violence against property to violence against individuals.

The idea was first publicly floated by Roman Catholic priest David Trosch of Mobile, Ala. Later, the Rev. Paul Hill publicly justified the murder of abortion provider Dr. David Gunn with a petition, signed by about 35 others, to the effect that killing abortion providers was justified in defense of innocent lives. The following year, Hill murdered Dr. John Britton and an escort and seriously wounded another. Hill is now on Florida’s death row for Britton’s killing.

Around this time, a law student at Regent University (founded by televangelist Pat Robertson) named Michael Hirsh formally presented the theory of justifiable homicide as his thesis paper. He argued–based on Florida law and his notion of biblical law–that Gunn’s murder was indeed justifiable homicide. Army of God leader Bray later credited Hirsh’s paper as informing his thinking in his influential 1994 book “A Time to Kill.” This book has served as perhaps the main theoretical text justifying anti-abortion violence and theocratic action against a government deemed out of sync with biblical law.

and:

REV. DONALD SPITZ: The reason I said that, that he was a hero – he or she was a hero – is this: Doctor abortionist baby killer Slepian has had a history of murdering unborn babies, so whoever the sniper was, male or female, that shot this abortionist, that shot this baby killer, saved those innocent human beings from being murdered by Dr. Slepian.

and:

“We have shed the blood of the innocent in the womb, and we are now reaping it in the streets.” — Rev. Flip Benham, Operation Rescue

and:

“No, you pro-abortion baby killing fanatics are the terrorists. What is a terrorist? Someone who murders innocent people. That is YOU. You pro-abortion babykillers murder innocent children each and every day.” — Rev Donald Soitz.

But Sarah Palin wouldn’t know about all that stuff when she’s talking adding her caveats “innocent Americans,” would she? I mean, after all, she isn’t part of that whole movement and its actions…

oh, wait:

I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.

and who was the local politician who participated in pickets of Dr. Susan Lemagie’s family planning clinic that got so aggressive that Lemagie’s 12 year old daughter suffered threats and Dr. Lemagie started talking about buying a bulletproof vest to go to work? Yes, that would be Sarah Palin.

And who is the national political candidate who voted against a bill to prosecute the killers of doctors and nurses at abortion clinics? Who is the national political candidate who voted to let those found guilty of terrorizing doctors and nurses off the hook for fines and restitution?

In this case, it’s not Sarah Palin. It’s John McCain.

6 comments to Interview Transcript: Sarah Palin Won't Call Abortion Clinic Bombers Terrorists

  • HareTrinity

    Personally, I’m pro-animal rights. I very much believe animals deserve rights, that how we treat them says things about our society, and I know various issues faced by animal rights campaigners.

    However, I don’t agree with the ones who dig up corpses (there was a case in the UK a while back), or assault places, or even those who verbally attack non-vegans.

    It’s a sad case where a person refuses to distance themselves from the campaigners giving their case a bad name.

    [Personally I'm pro-choice, but I support people's rights to state their opinions, and society's allowance of such views in order to keep things in check, though I very much doubt the rights of babies are at stake. Though I do wish they wouldn't hide behind the Bible, which allows abortion as assault at most, not murder, as implied by Exodus 21:22 according to most interpretations.]

  • HareTrinity

    That should say “assault people or attack areas” on paragraph 2.

  • DARK ENERGY

    Very disturbing and very telling.

    xDxEx

  • kevin

    “There’s no question Bill Ayres, under his own admittance, was, um, one who sought to destroy, er, our US Capitol and our Pentagon”

    Stupid and Mendacious. no question!

    destroy our US Capitol?

    McCain: “and it was a planned and calculated overall strategy to destroy America”

    destroy America? BY panting small bombs

    “at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, in a men’s lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and in a women’s restroom in the Pentagon in 1972,”

    ? that’s the plan? blow up America’s crap-houses so we have no where to go poopy? That’s going to destroy America?

  • ajs

    It’s a slippery slope. Give them an inch and they’ll go after women that experience spontaneous abortions. So far as I can tell, conception is a process that works hard to succeed and makes provision for correcting mistakes by aborting. Miscarriage is far more common than the medical procedure and the loss is no less profound yet there is no moaning and gnashing of teeth when a fetus fails on its own.

    The business of enslaving women (what else do you call forced labor?) to preserve the primacy of somebody else’s amateur standing on the alter of it’s only bad if when a doctor terminates the pregnancy is wrenched civics being perpetrated by people who ought to be grateful that the intrusion they are so blithe to call for in support of their conviction won’t be turned against them the way it is in China (so that babies who are permitted to go full term will have enough to eat once they’re born).

    I’d prefer that government has no business regulating the status of tissue beyond ruling that it can’t be sold. While a possible person has no viability separate from its mother – like it or not there’s no rightness in requiring a woman to attempt gestate it against her will, and it’s disgusting when the conception resulted from rape or it’s equivalent and it’s cruel to all involved forcing women to inflict birth on a baby that is positive for Tay Sachs disease. But that’s the kind of thing you get from people that cling bitterly (they can live with disgusting and cruel is sure-enough bitter) to their one tiny thought; all the while confusing it’s simplicity for truth. And thinking that imposing it on other people means they have a life.

    Now how do you think I can find respect for Sarah Palin? Well not yet for sure – like the housing market, she hasn’t hit bottom and until she does we don’t know how low she’s willing to go. ‘Thing is that I’d rather.

  • Elle

    One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.

    America has a long and bloody history supporting terrorists, of course we call them freedom fighters, or allies, in the case of Israel. why should it surprise you that a republican shill like Palin will not admit that she supports domestic terrorism when it is used to further her own beliefs and causes.

    Terrorists are always the guys on the other side. Otherwise they are “defenders of freedom and decency”.

    Palin is sure going to burn in that hell she believes in, along with her “heroes” from the frontlines of the abortion wars.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>