In an AP article posted by Breitbart our resident attorney general said today that it was “too early” to designate the Times Square bomb plot as terrorism. I would guess if the perpetrator was just in town for some sight-seeing and forgot to leave home his groundhog eradication apparatus, Mr. Holder could make this “assumption”.
"Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that investigators have some good leads in addition to the videotape of the man. Holder said in remarks to reporters that it is too early to say whether the incident was of foreign or domestic origin or to designate it as terrorism."
Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, in a Fox New interview with Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, attempted several times to get Napolitano to at least admit this was an act of terrorism, but there must still remain a strict Obama policy to restrict using the word. (complete video here)
Carlson moves on to questioning Ms. Napolitano about her statements concerning the “much safer southern borders” where there’s also no terrorism taking place at this posting.
A search of the liberal online news outlets only faintly produce the word terrorism in their postings:
In the New York Times:
"While the authorities said they were treating the failed bombing — described as a “one-off” by Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary — as a potential terrorist attack, they said there was no evidence of a continued threat to the city."
From the Washington Post:
"Obviously, it wasn't an accident," Kelly said. "It was somebody who brought this to the location to send a message, to terrorize people in the area......"
"The bomb found in the Pathfinder was "a sober reminder that New York is a target for people who want to come here and do us harm," Kelly said Sunday. He said the device would have sent up a fireball from the center of a popular and bustling tourist landmark known to have symbolic importance for militant groups at war with the United States......."
This would be New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, but no where in the Wapo story do they use the word terrorist or terrorist plot in their own context. The Post did mention at the bottom of page two that our “overseas contingency operations”, (my quote), may have riled up our foreign enemies. A friend has suggested that this may have been a “dry run” to see if they, (THE TERRORIST), could get bomb in the Square---remember the towers did not come down on the first attempt---but who or what ever the plot, let’s keep that dirty word “terrorist” out of the conversation. Sadly, I guess when a building comes down and hundreds or thousands more perish, the media and our “leadership” will get around to calling this what it is---TERRORISM.
(cross-posted in the Green Room---Hot Air)