After calling the January 6 insurrection a “terrorist attack” earlier this week, Ted Cruz has given it some more thought, and he has decided that he no longer thinks it was a terrorist attack.
Quick backstory: Cruz royally pissed off Fox News propagandist Tucker Carlson and a whole bunch of other conservatives on Wednesday when he used the words “violent terrorist attack” while speaking at a Senate Rules Committee hearing about the security failures that made it possible for the MAGA militia to storm the U.S. Capitol last year.
“It is an anniversary of a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol,” Cruz said, “where we saw the men and women of law enforcement demonstrate incredible courage, incredible bravery, risk their lives to defend the men and women who served in this Capitol.”
Here's a video of Ted Cruz today referring to January 6th as a "violent terrorist attack on the Capitol".
Unbelievable.pic.twitter.com/F00bF08ALN
— John D • (@RedWingGrips) January 5, 2022
After upsetting members of his own party by accurately describing them as terrorists, Cruz went on Carlson’s show last night to walk back the remarks and beg for forgiveness.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
When Carlson asked him why he used the word “terrorist,” Cruz said his phrasing was “sloppy” and “frankly dumb.”
Carlson pushed back, and Cruz said, “What I was referring to are the limited number of people who engaged in violent attacks against police officers. I think you and I both agree that if you assault a police officer, you should go to jail.”
Then he clarified that he doesn’t think the peaceful protestors were terrorists, nor does he think the “millions of patriots across the country supporting Trump are terrorists.”
Carlson still wasn’t happen with the response. “What you just said doesn’t make sense,” he scolded, accusing Cruz of giving in to the Democrats’ narrative.
After some more heated back and forth, Cruz finally gave in and said, “I agree with you. It was a mistake to say that yesterday, and the reason is what you just said, which is we have now had a year of Democrats and the media twisting words and trying to say that all of us are terrorists. Trying to say you are a terrorist, I am a terrorist.”
Ted Cruz grovels apologetically to Tucker Carlson for his "sloppy" comments about January 6 being a "terrorist attack" pic.twitter.com/ZBPgLLBWIL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2022
The whole thing was pathetic and a clear attempt by Cruz at salvaging whatever change he has at running for president in 2024. (SPOILER: He has no chance!) Last month, the Texas senator told The Truth Gazette that he’s considering another bid for the White House.
“You know, I ran in 2016,” he said. “It was the most fun I’ve ever had in my life. We had a very crowded field. We had 17 candidates in the race — a very strong field. And I ended up placing second.”
Here’s how people on Twitter are responding to Cruz’s pathetic Fox News appearance last night…
Ted Cruz didn’t stand up for his wife or his father against Trump. Of course, he didn’t stand up for democracy & the truth of January 6 against Tucker Carlson.
— Steven Beschloss (@StevenBeschloss) January 7, 2022
Meanwhile on Fox News Tucker Carlson spanked Ted Cruz for being a bad bad boy. pic.twitter.com/2pYBz7AuFg
— Mr. Newberger + (@jeremynewberger) January 7, 2022
Ted Cruz’s groveling last night made it clear that Republicans will need to survive the Tucker Carlson primary.
— Chris Hahn (@ChristopherHahn) January 7, 2022
Quick… somebody turn this into Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz. pic.twitter.com/kUP5Atn81u
— Billy Baldwin (@BillyBaldwin) January 7, 2022
Pretty weird hearing Ted Cruz argue how the United States is becoming "emasculated" & how America needs manly men, then shortly after watching him suck Tucker Carlson's fish stick while he grovels at his feet begging for his love like a broken-hearted little girl.
— Kyla In The Burgh ????? (@KylaInTheBurgh) January 7, 2022
Exclusive video of Ted Cruz on Tucker Carlson's show tonight… pic.twitter.com/1YB4m6AgYH
— Daily Trix (@DailyTrix) January 7, 2022
If you play Ted Cruz’s interview with Tucker Carlson backwards, you’ll hear Satan. But that’s not the worst part. If you play it forward, you’ll hear Ted Cruz?
— Y'all hurry up??????????? (@catfishyak) January 7, 2022
Tucker Carlson attacking Ted Cruz is what I’m here for. pic.twitter.com/MXFkfj4HJZ
— ABBA didn't get subpoenaed, (@Abba_Annabelle) January 7, 2022
Graham Gremore is the Features Editor and a Staff Writer at Queerty. Follow him on Twitter @grahamgremore.
James Hart
If what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was terrorism, were the Antifa protestors who destroyed and burned cars and stores all over America in the summer of 2020 terrorists?
Let’s see how honest the readers here really are. Just checking the hypocrisy level of Queerty readers.
DarkZephyr
Wait, lets turn this around and check YOUR hypocrisy level. DO you consider what happened on January 6 2021 to be an act of terrorism?
Mack
You’re just another right wing troll advocating the overthrow of the Constitution. THAT’S WHAT TRUMP AND HIS TERRORISTS are all about.
Kangol2
And on cue, the GOP troll starts up. Let me ask you, did anyone linked to Antifa or any leftist group try to overthrow a legitimate US presidential election? Did they storm the Capital building to block official Constitutional procedures to elect the next president of the US? Were they in communication with numerous members of Congress, as well as far-left members of the Democratic Party or other left parties, like the Democratic Socialists or the Communist Party? Did they call for the Vice President of the US to be hanged and then erect a gallows outside the hall of Congress? Did they threaten numerous duly elected US officials, including people on the left and right, and threaten them with death? You do realize that the attempted terrorist coup to overthrow a legitimate US election, which we all witnessed with our eyes on January 6, 2021, and which is now being investigated, is something that has never happened in US history, right? Right?
James Hart
I see that no one here wants to answer my question. Not surprised.
Most of the commenters here are just left-wing hypocrites. Boy, I can already see that you’ll be anguished when the Republicans take back control of the House and Senate in 2022. It’s gonna happen.
The left-wing overreached this time just like they always do. Just as they did in 1994 and 2010 when they lost the House and Senate.
By the way, I’m a registered Democrat, but the more I read your crazy comments, I think I better re-think my party affiliation. I think I’ll reregister as independent. I believe 100% in gay rights, but I do not believe in the lavender fascism which is what your peddling. The gay community has no pope. You have no authority to excommunicate gays who disagree with you.
Biden and the Democrats need moderates like me to get re-elected. They certainly don’t need any of you because you’re already in their corner no matter what stupid stuff they do.
DarkZephyr
James Heart, how great for you that you aren’t a Democrat. Guess what? I’m not and I still voted for Biden. I do think that going crazy and stealing a bunch of crap and burning buildings in riots is bad, and its terrorism as far as people were certainly terrified. I don’t believe for a moment that it was “Antifa” that did it. I believe it was a bunch of crazy, stupid a**holes taking advantage of the situation and being selfish.
Its hard for me to buy that you are not a Republican and are in any way a Democrat with the way you throw Antifa conspiracy theories around.
Now I can’t help but notice that you did NOT answer MY question. And with your continued obsession with Antifa below, it seems pretty clear that you do not consider what happened at the Capital to be an act of terrorism. You either don’t care a whit about it at all or you actually endorse and support it. Yeah you are SUCH a Democrat.
cliche guevara
No, they aren’t the same. And the explanation is pretty simple. A violent attempt to overturn the results of an lawful election is not the same as a violent protest. Seems like anyone should be able to figure that one out.
RyanMBecker
So tell us, James Hart, what was the unifying political agenda of those so-called antifa protesters? I challenge you to name a unifying goal, or even a figurehead. What I saw were individual protesters deciding to destroy whatever was convenient. They were not egged by anyone or definable ideology or goal. They were a bunch of angry protesters sick of what they saw as inequality and injustice. Sorry, but that’s not terrorism as defined by the FBI, local law enforcement or even groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. Rioters, yes but terrorists? No. But of course, facts and academic norms don’t matter to undereducated GOP and Trump supporters, so keep making up your own definitions and “alternate facts.” I expect nothing less from you.
Jim
Please donate to the Go Fund Me Page to get Ted Cruz a spine.
Fahd
National Geographic had an interesting program the other day that pointed out that since 2001, the damage caused by and the threat from white right-wing terrorists has been much greater than that from Muslim terrorists or BLM, etc.
However, as they further pointed out, there seems to be an issue among the white majority and with the news media — it is a “taboo” in many circles to call or refer to the right-wing terrorists (eg. Proud Boys types) as “terrorists”. If you were looking for an example of structural racism, this is one.
As for Cruz, the politicos working for him are dangerous mutations of Karl Rove and, among other things, conduct endless focus groups among the “poorly educated” so that they have the right issue selection, approach, and language to seduce and ensnare the votes of the average person. Very dangerous! I suppose it’s encouraging that Cruz keeps f*cking up (see also trip to Cancun), but I wouldn’t underestimate the political machinery around him.
furrychest
“Terrorism” is defined by the target of the violence, which in this case, are civilians (in contrast to military targets, law enforcement, government institutions,etc.) which is what makes it so reprehensible. Attacking the WTC on 9/11 is a clear example. Attacking the Pentagon that day only meets the definition because of the civilian victims who were passengers on that aircraft. That’s why Cruz used the term inappropriately.
Kangol2
Huh? Terrorists frequently attack government targets and institutions, military installations and troops, and law enforcement. In fact, terrorists have repeatedly attacked government institutions, militaries and law enforcement officials all over the world, not just civilian targets. One can debate whether the January 6 coup attempt participants are terrorists (they were because they aimed to terrorize Congress into overturning a legitimate US election, and have completely terrorized the GOP into believing and advancing a false narrative pushed by a treasonous psychopath), but terrorism itself as a concept does not preclude attacks on government officials, institutions or buildings. Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, committed an act of terror by assassinating President John F. Kennedy. The same is true of John Wilkes Booth assassinating President Abraham Lincoln. Both were acts of terror committed by terrorists, for varying reasons.
DarkZephyr
Your definition of “Terrorism” is incomplete and misleading. This is how the FBI defines domestic terrorism (with no mention of victims needing to be civilians at all):
“Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
The FBI takes *inspiration* for this definition from U.S. Code at 18 U.S.C 2331(5) which defines domestic terrorism as activities:
-Involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State;
-Appearing to be intended to:
~Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
~Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
~Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping;
and
-Occuring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
And the Homeland Security Act definition of terrorism 6 U.S.C. 101(18) defined Domestic Terrorism this way:
-Involved an act that:
~Is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
~Is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State or other subdivision of the United States; and
-Appears to be intended:
~To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
~Influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
~Affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
As you can see, the civilian aspect is only part of the definition of terrorism and not necessary for the act to be defined as terrorism. The Capital Riots check MORE than enough boxes to be officially defined as an act of terrorism according to all three of the above definitions.
Also, a direct attack on civilians is not needed to intimidate them. Attacking what they hold sacred an dear is more than enough. Much of America’s civilian population was frightened and intimidated when these riots took place.
And finally, as a reminder, the FBI itself does not mention the word “civilian” at all in its definition of terrorism.
So in other words, Cruz was initially quite accurate. Tucker Carson is wrong, and so are you.
James Hart
DarkZephyr:
Thanks for clarifying.
“Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
Sounds like Antifa to me.
cliche guevara
@James Hart
Tell me don’t know what ANTIFA is without telling me you don’t know what ANTIFA is.
I love this right wing talking point because it exposed the dullards that mindlessly repeat what they are told and never stop to question the veracity.
furrychest
Here’s the Oxford dictionary definition:
“The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims.”
This is the clearest definition I know that that negates the idea that “One man’s ‘terrorist’ is another man’s ‘freedom fighter.’
DarkZephyr
That’s great for the Oxford dictionary but we’re talking about the legal definition as recognized by the United States of America.
And that being said, the Oxford Dictionary actually has multiple references for “Terrorism” but its “Quick Reference” is as follows:
“The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
You should note that even the definition that you have given us does not say “Civilians alone” it says “especially civilians” and absolutely does not exclude non-civilians. Cruz was initially correct.
At any rate, in the final analysis, the definition that counts is the legal definition as used by the United States of America. The Capital Riots were an act of domestic terrorism.
Its interesting that you seem so devoted to the idea that the Capital Riots were not an act of terrorism or that they were not particularly “odious”.
furrychest
And from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS):
“Terrorism is the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends.”
In its choice of targets and its demands for legitimacy, terrorism breaks down the distinctions that define the moral limits of war; noncombatants are the targets, and all society is viewed as the enemy on ideological grounds.
This, to my mind, is what makes “terrorism” unique, and especially odious.
d3clark
The OED definition does not exclude military personnel it it’s definition. Neither does that of the NCJRS. Military personnel in a non- combat situation can be classed as innocents, as well.
d3clark
cruz was a star on the debate team in college and practiced as a lawyer. He pleaded a number of cases before the Supreme Court as well as before lower courts. I find it really odd that someone with that background said something that he later referred to as “sloppy” and “dumb.”
cruz has stated that he wants to run for president in 2024. Since trump has started to lose some of his base, and old school Republicans abhor him, cruz may have been testing the waters to see if he’d get support from that sector if he denounced trump’s minions.
furrychest
An interesting theory.
Is it at all possible that Cruz is so incensed by the idea of so called “conservatives” attacking law enforcement officers that he got carried away in using the word “terrorists” and was therefore willing to admit his error, when confronted by Carlson?
cliche guevara
@furry
Ted Cruz doesn’t give 2 poops about conservatives or Republicans. His concern has always been Ted Cruz and he will say and do anything that helps Ted Cruz. Take note that during his tenure as a national figure he has pulled many jackass stunts and no Republicans rally around him. They wish he would go alway far more than Democrats do.
So If you feel like Ted Cruz represents your political beliefs you have been duped. He doesn’t have any convictions and will turn on a dime if it serves his best interest.
MISTERJETT
they’re both full buckets of excrement.