So, when I hear of an act of terror, an internal clock starts clicking.
I wonder, how long before we find out the suspect is a radical Islamist.
And then, how long before that affiliation is rejected as vital to the crime.
Witness the murderous acts against our military in Frankfurt: it was only a matter of hours before the killer's links to radical Islam were exposed.
And it was only a few hours later, that we saw an Administration official dismiss that notion.
Here we have P. J. Crowley, bringing back memories - not only of Tucson, but of Ft. Hood, too.
Reporter: Even if somebody is acting alone, it's not a terrorist attack?
Crowley: For example, was the shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords a terrorist attack. I mean, you have to look at the evidence, you have to look at the evidence and look at the motivation then you make a judgment and that is a process as far as I know that is ongoing.
Yeah. He went there.
P.J., which must stand for "poor judgment," actually compared a horrible crime linked to radical Islam, to whatever was bubbling in Jared Loughner's damaged head.
So does P.J. actually believe these crimes are alike? Is he that dim?
I mean, with that hypothetical yammer, Crowley not only minimized the nature of the terrorist threat, but also implied he still may believe the attack on Giffords was part of a greater movement.
And so a killer can shout Allahu Akbar - just like at Ft. Hood - and the Administration still won't "commit." They only see a man with no affiliation–because decades of ingrained political correctness have taught them to be fearful of pointing out that affiliation. It's bigotry, after all.
Look, making no mention of terror won't make terror go away.
All it does is expose the biggest weakness our country has: leaders with spines like spaghetti.