There comes a point where one surpasses the level of “kook”, “crank” or “wingnut” and simply becomes utterly delusional. For example, I seriously wonder which world Dana Perino, former White House Press Secretary, believes in to be able to go on Fox’s Hannity and straight-facedly assert that “[Americans] did not have a terrorist attack on [their] country during President Bush’s term”. I presume a lot of crack was involved, or a serious case of anterograde amnesia.
Dana Perino, two words for you: “eleven” and “nine”. Now, put them in order, and you get …?
The rest about the Fort Hood shooting being a bona fide terrorist act was dumbass as well (though just less so). Admittedly, “terrorism” has become an exceedingly loose term these days, being applied so readily and thoughtlessly to any massacre, but terrorism has a strict definition: it can only be applied to an act that A) was perpetrated by actual terrorists; B) was no “normal” crime, and C) had clear socio-political goals behind it. Terrorists don’t just kill any random people for no reason; it’s always to push an agenda, to destabilize people for a specific reason. Even if Maj. Hasan (the accused Fort Hood shooter) was himself a terrorist (and I seriously doubt it, myself), his act was a standard shoot-out like any other (not to diminish the impact or horror of the event). Not a terrorist act. He was obviously motivated by no more (or less) than anger and desperation, not some political upheaval. To claim otherwise is to assert facts that no-one knows.
(via @todayspolitics)
Technorati tags: terrorism · 9-11 · George Bush · Dana Perino · Fort Hood · Hannity · Nidal Malik Hasan