Follow Me on Pinterest

Does the Word Terrorism Terrify Liberals More Than The Act?

Janet Napolitano is asked point blank if the terrorism by Steve Doocy on the May 3 edition of Fox and Friends:

Uh well it certainly is something that I would not rule out. The way it was carried out .....until we know the perpetrator...you don't know the derivation you don't know the intent......

When pressed again by Doocy about whether or not this is terroism she says

We do know if that if the explosions had been properly done and ignited that would've been quite a fireball in that particular area, it was not properly done, it was not effective, and one of the very significant things that occured here was that street vendors noticed this truck....


The Fox gang then changed the subject the Arizona illegal immigration debate before Napolitano could breakout her keys to dangle them in front of the camera like we're a bunch of infants.




violent extremist (vahy-uh-luhnt ik-strēmist)-

1. Terrorism by another name

2. How someone may act when they miss their morning coffee

Its not hard to understand Napolitano's reluctance to say the word "terrorism." She's part of an administration that has tried to rewrite, among other things, geo-political reality ever since it has taken office. As a result they have clearly opted to start referring to Muslims who want to maim and murder innocent people the world over as "violent extremists."

I can't read Obama's mind, because I'm just not brave enough to explore the bottomless pit of liberal intellect, but I can hazard a guess that he thinks if he doesn't call them what they have been known as they'll cease to be that very thing he knows we think we know them to be. So if only we did less knowing and more thinking we wouldn't know what to think and they'll think we now know better and they'll know to think better of us too. Then we can live in a world where "know thy enemy" is changed via hope to "no thy enemy," leaving our diplomats to begin tackling the phenomenon known as "frenemies."

I think that clears it up.

We have yet to actually learn much of anything about this Faisal Shahzad character, but his common denominator with the the rest of the terrorism species could not be more obvious....unless you suffer an affliction known as "electedpoliticianitis"....

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Katie Couric.

“If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that, somebody who’s homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something, it could be anything...”

Iraq?

If I had to live in New York City with this guy as my mayor I would move right away to somewhere safer....

Look, I sympathize with Obama, terrorism is vewy scawy...and its unpredictable and maybe someone should've leveled with him when he was a very little kid that hiding your face when adults approach you doesn't mean they can't see you.

By continuing to insist on taking a softened stance against this clear and present evil in the world we not only embolden it, but we make ourselves completely vulnerable to its attempts to destroy us. Reducing radical Islamic terrorists to the label of "violent extremism" makes who these people are and what they do more ambiguous than the masculinity of a certain person below, and for their protection I wont say who...



I don't know what is more frightening....that we are now in the throes of a modern day appeasement movement, or that even though it has been clearly identified we wont make it to the next election to displace it.

You can see the Fox and Friends video here, Napolitano's response in question starts at around 1:40.