text: i want to put it up on the screen. it is defined as an act intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence a policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination for kidnapping. how in the world is the fort hood shooting not domestic terrorism? tom? >> yeah, one word, gregg, politics. if you look at the political climate in 2 ao 09 whe 2009 when the fort hood massacre occurred, we had president obama withdrawing the combat troops from iraq which was one of his promises in his campaign. war on terror, we continue use that in the obama new speak dictionary. the administration did not want to deal with an act that was labeled islamic extremism at that point in time when they
  were trying to wind down the war in iraq and the war on terror generally. anybody who -- we had the likes of dr. phil and so forth come on air, without knowing any of the facts and start talking about ptfd. this is a defendant who is an army doctor who had never been in a combat zone, gregg. and anybody who dared to say, well let's look and see if this might be islamic fundamentalism, or extremism they were labeled a racist. gregg: how is it possible, richard, very quickly that the attorney general could characterize this sikh shooting as being investigated for domestic terrorism and fort hood is not? how is that pos>> here is how i. i agree these are very distinct concepts. the question is whether or not the action is an act to influence government policy. a white supremacist who walks into a room and shoots people because he believes they should not live in this country is as the authorities believe