Monday, April 19, 2010

Clinton's Memory

I have to say I find Slick-Willy a bit obtuse. He decries the the partisan times and whines loudly about how such partisan times leads to violence. I just don't quite understand how he seems to come off all innocent when the trigger to the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City happened to be the Governments destruction of the Waco Compound of the Branch Davidians. No doubt nut jobs go over board, but they don't typically act without stimulus.

Was McVeigh's actions wrong? No shit, of course they were. Were the FBI actions wrong at Waco? You betcha.

I just can't quite figure what his point is with this:
We are again dealing with difficulties in a contentious, partisan time. We are more connected than ever before, more able to spread our ideas and beliefs, our anger and fears. As we exercise the right to advocate our views, and as we animate our supporters, we must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged.

Civic virtue can include harsh criticism, protest, even civil disobedience. But not violence or its advocacy. That is the bright line that protects our freedom. It has held for a long time, since President George Washington called out 13,000 troops in response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

Is he really trying to push the tea party into the cause of any disaster that does happen? I think so. It strikes me as pretty obvious, even if he doesn't clearly state it. Of course, I didn't think he would come out and say it straight.
Note that Clinton does not have the guts to say outright that people who criticize the government too harshly have blood on their hands. Instead he strongly suggests it, then retreats to the position that criticism is OK, though violence isn't, as if anyone were suggesting otherwise. Still, he wants to draw a line between "criticizing a policy or a politician," which is "part of the lifeblood of democracy," and "demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws," which encourages mass homicide. But since he offers no examples of either, it's hard to know what sort of speech he considers beyond the pale. For example, if I call Clinton a state-worshiping crybaby who equates opposition with sedition, is that legitimate criticism or demonization?

Must be demonization, because it doesn't follow the talking point of the Liberal administration that is standing as the victim in all things at present. I think the tea party should watch the governments actions very closely now. Things can become really ugly really fast with very little cause, especially if they are set up by some far left fanatic trying to twist the politics of today to what he really wants.

UPDATE: Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) talks on this in his Hair of the Dog this week.

No comments: