Obama: Soft On Domestic Terror?

For reasons I won’t explain, I’m raw and angry from Tiller’s death. Obama’s statements about abortion before Tiller seemed entirely too mealy-mouthed, the statements of a politician who refused to spend any political capital on an issue that I care a lot about. Now it is clear that our dormant domestic terrorist problem has resurfaced. The terrorists hate our freedoms. They will use violence to achieve the goal that our Constitution denies them.
None of us should think that the way to deal with terrorism is to give in. None of us should think that the way to handle people who hate us for our freedom is to give up our freedom. But Obama’s mealy-mouthedness has continued after this terrorist slaying, and I will not moderate my disgust and anger. Obama sounds like he wants to compromise with these people. The right churned up silly outrage that Obama would be soft on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, but I think we are in much greater danger that Obama will be soft of Christian fundamentalist terrorism.
Six thousand acts of violence. We have our domestic Christian fringe to thank for the Oklahoma City bombing, the killing of eight physicians including in their homes and churches, a shooting spree at a Unitarian church; and Rudolph’s bombing spree, which included two women’s health clinics, a gay bar and Centennial Olympic Park.
We have terror cells operating in our suburbs, living among us, egged on by radical clerics who then deny connection to the violence and its perpetrators. These extremists are trying to change our politics by killing civilians. How will our President respond? He should go on national television and tell the nation that we do not give in and we will not negotiate with terrorists. He should, but he won’t. He won’t do it next time, either. And there will be a next time.

Disclaimer: This post was written by a Feministing Community user and does not necessarily reflect the views of any Feministing columnist, editor, or executive director.

Join the Conversation