April 19, 2010

Why is Bill Clinton suddenly making such a spectacle of himself over the Tea Party?

The former President has cropped up on TV and in an op-ed the NYT warning about the potential for violence. I know why the Tea Party is in the news, but what's with Clinton? Why is he the go-to guy on the supposed latent violence of the Tea Party movement?
Fifteen years ago today, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 168 men, women and children. It was, until 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in United States history. 
Oh! It's a memorial for human beings who died 15 years ago. We are remembering them, and that brings Bill Clinton, who was President in 1995, to the fore. There was nothing partisan about who lived and died in the Oklahoma City bombing. Children — individuals who never thought about politics — died that day. Yet here is Bill Clinton using his special prominence today to unleash a political attack to push back a populist movement that threatens his political party.

303 comments:

1 – 200 of 303   Newer›   Newest»
garage mahal said...

Don't understand why when Napolitano or Bill Clinton are talking about domestic terrorists, the right wing thinks they're talking about them?

Fred4Pres said...

There was that incident in Waco too. I recall Tim McVeigh bringing that up.

F said...

And you forgot to add: the bombing was motivated by McVeigh's outrage at the Clinton administration's burning of 168 people in Waco. Clinton has a convenient memory. F

AllenS said...

Well, give that man a cigar.

AllenS said...

No, wait!

rhhardin said...

I didn't know that Oklahoma City got remembered.

There must be a growing list of sensitive topics I'm not at all aware of.

A Ryder truck commercial blackout day.

Pogo said...

@garage:
Bill's MO has always been one of plausible deniability. (See: definition of "is".)

rhhardin said...

Janet Reno's birthday.

Psota said...

In my more violent and extreme moments, I think "Up yours, Bill Clinton!"

rhhardin said...

Something or other ridge.

Choctaw Ridge.

Clinton was knocking off Americans like gangbusters back in the day.

Joe said...

Don't understand why when Napolitano or Bill Clinton are talking about domestic terrorists, the right wing thinks they're talking about them?

Gee Garage because Clinton then and NOW, explicitly links the Right with domestic terrorists, and Janet Napolitano has released memo's doing the same....

But thank you for asking.

David said...

The Waco fiasco resulted in one of the most amazing free passes ever given by journalism to government officials. Janet Reno--Clinton's AG--was directly involved in the tactical decisions that lead to the horror of that day. Clinton may have been--it's never been clear.

Yet they danced on for the rest of Clinton's term without those fatal mistakes attached to their reputation.

I tend to believe that Reno had some amazing dirt on Clinton. Otherwise why wasn't she fired for this mess. Or perhaps she just knew and could prove that Clinton too was directly involved in approving the attack.

I don't hold Clinton and Reno responsible for Tim McVeigh. They are responsible for the unnecessary deaths in Waco.

But Clinton is so clearly immune from accountability that he can bring this incident up with impunity.

JAL said...

Told you he is an ass. And so are the people who sent him out. And the thing he is riding upon.

Exploitation.

And in the inner darkness of his mind -- expiation for Waco and OC?

OC tea partiers are probably not too happy.

Peter V. Bella said...

Why would anyone take Bill Clinton seriously? It is like taking Carter seriously. It makes no sense.

But the media loves him for some reason. They give him a bully pulpit. He gets to waste oxygen and spew nonsense.

I guess he got tired of being rightfully blamed for 9/11.

garage mahal said...

Gee Garage because Clinton then and NOW, explicitly links the Right with domestic terrorists, and Janet Napolitano has released memo's doing the same....

Yea I didn't see that in the op-Ed. But I'll take your word for it.

AllenS said...

Any thoughts on what transpired at Waco, garage?

JAL said...

You're a liar, garage.

JAL said...

Peter -- it gives them something and someone to write about which fills up their time and space so they don't have to work hard at being, you know, *journalists*

And they get to slide in things like the AP did the toher day when it describes the tea party as "anti-government."

Have to get that into the public collective consciousness.

Paul said...

Clinton sees the Tea Party as the overt political expression of what he and Hillary call the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. A couple of years ago, Clinton mused that the VRWC was not as powerful as it used to be because of demographic changes in this country.

When he said that, I realized that in Clinton's mind the VRWC was not composed of political opponents or activists, but by every white person who is not actively leftist. In other words, it pleases Clinton that the percentage of America's population that is white is in decline, because that means less power for the VRWC.

To Clinton, a movement like the Million Man March, anti-war demonstrations, or the pro-amnesty marches of Mexican immigrants are not threatening because they emanate from the left. He relates to their anger.

However, a political movement that attracts middle-class Americans who are concerned that government has run amok represents a threat to him. It doesn't matter how peaceably they gather to petition their government for a redress of grievances, he is going to consider them angry, racist, and dangerous. They stand in the way of everything the left intends to do.

Quayle said...

Garage writes, "Don't understand...."

Well duh.

We've been trying to tell you that for a long time now.

AllenS said...

Any thoughts on what transpired at Waco, garage?

1jpb said...

As this thread becomes packed w/ folks explaining how the government-gone-wild motivated McVeigh to commit murder, will Althouse figure out why WJC may be concerned about the current folks screaming, and viscerally feeling, that "their" country is being destroyed for all time?

garage mahal said...

You're a liar, garage.

On what?

Substance McGravitas said...

Probably worth mentioning that "tea party" appears nowhere in the article.

AllenS said...

Any thoughts on what transpired at Waco, 1jpb?

E.M. Davis said...

Another dick move by Clinton.

Jason said...

In fairness, the Ruby Ridge incident didn't happen under Clinton. The shooting happened in August, 1992. George H.W. Bush was still in office.

Joan said...

Garage, just because it wasn't in the OpEd doesn't mean it didn't happen. There has been extensive coverage of Clinton's associating the Tea Party movement with McVeigh the past few days. Where've you been?

shoutingthomas said...

Remember how the left was constantly screaming that the repression was coming any day during the Bush administration?

I can't recall President Bush ever slandering the opposition. President Obama resorts to slander every time he encounters opposition.

Makes me sentimental for the old days of the Bush administration. President Bush was an icon of civility and respect in comparison to Obama.

HDHouse said...

probably because the tea party shit is just about the worst thing going on in american politics.

and it is indicative of the responses early on in this thread...that somehow mcveigh is innocent and only did this outrage because of WACO.

are you people nuts?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I can't wait until November.

AllenS said...

Nobody is implying that McVeigh is innocent. Waco (only one capital letter) was one of the reasons that McVeigh gave for the bombing.

garage mahal said...

Extensive coverage of Clinton linking the tea party to terrorists at reason.com and Instpaundit? Oy.

AllenS said...

Any thoughts on what transpired at Waco, garage?

AJ Lynch said...

I have an old old news clipping from 10/19/200o from the Lancaster, PA New Era newspaper. The news story tells of Clnton's visit to a memorial service for the Cole victims. Clinton said "To those who attacked them we say: You will not find a safe harbor..We will find you and justice will prevail".

I think it was soon after that day that President Clinton went back to his important business like considering which big Dem donors he would pardon.

So don't believe anything this shyster says.

Back to you Garage....

Joe said...

and it is indicative of the responses early on in this thread...that somehow mcveigh is innocent and only did this outrage because of WACO.

Would you care to find the quotes to support that statement, HD?


I'll wait......

Jason said...

Old libtard line: "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

New libtard line: "The tea party is the worst thing going on in American politics."

No, shithead. It's the best thing in American politics in over a generation.

The worst thing going on in American politics is the bigotry, arrogance and hatred of people like you.

Scott M said...

Not a peep from him over the left's anger level during the last administration, warranted or not. Why this surprises anyone coming from the greatest triangulation expert in recent political memory is a good question too.

For the life of me, I don't know why each and every Tea Party rally doesn't start with the audio (or video, if it's out there) of Hillary screaming "it is our right to disagree with ANY administration" etc etc. They should have been doing this from day 1.

PatCA said...

Dick Morris, that magnificent bastard, says it's a replay of his plan to rescue Clinton from the Lewinsky mess.

How Clinton Expoited OK City

Quayle said...

The risk to America is always that the Constitution will be ignored, used only as a lever and ratchet to go one political direction, crowded to the corner, and trampled upon by aspiring men and women.

But according to the Clinton and the left, opposing these aspiring men and women derivatively in the name of the Constitution is sedition and dangerous.

Thankfully, we've always been able to totally overthrow the government by voting them out.

So let's keep at it, build momentum through to November, and get this generation of liars, crooks, and cheats out of our government - every last one of 'em.

AllenS said...

Any thoughts on what transpired at Waco, garage?

Cassie said...

McGravitas, I noticed the same thing. I don't know, though, maybe we just found the center of the universe.

AJ Lynch said...

ScottM:

That is a great idea! But the shrieking and screeching by Hillary Clinton on that tape has been banned by the AMA and the EPA as hazardous to all living things.

SteveR said...

President Obama finds these people amusing and President Clinton warns us they represent a potential for domestic terrorism. Given the sources, that makes perfect sense.

Lem said...

Before is all over tea parties are going to be blamed for that volcano with a weird name.

It was Gore Vidal who called Timothy McVeigh a patriot.. not tea partiers.

wv - reshases

exhelodrvr1 said...

The attention he was getting via the Haitian earthquake relief efforts has died down, and he wants the spotlight back.

garage mahal said...

So don't believe anything this shyster says.

Back to you Garage....


The OKC bombing did happen. Domestic terrorists groups do exist. The FBI does track them. And they are saying their membership levels are exploding, as they did when Clinton was president. I think I would take their word for it more than Insta-hack. By the way is there anyone who thinks their readers are dumber than Instapundit does his? It's just a series of daily outrages to make you ANGRY! If you're not a domestic terrorists, why would the topic make you angry!

AllenS said...

Any thoughts on what transpired at Waco, garage?

Shanna said...

I tend to believe that Reno had some amazing dirt on Clinton. Otherwise why wasn't she fired for this mess. Or perhaps she just knew and could prove that Clinton too was directly involved in approving the attack.

There was also the Elian Gonzales thing. Let’s hold a giant gun on a little kid, that will be awesome!

I don't know how she kept her job.

Joe said...

The OKC bombing did happen.
Yeah, and no one denies it….what does it have to do with the Right or the Tea Party Movement?


Domestic terrorists groups do exist.
Yes, they do…and the most active ones are ECO-Terrorists, generally from the Left or individual Muslim extremists, and AGAIN what do they have to do with the Right or the Tea Party Movement?

The FBI does track them.
No argument, there.

And they are saying their membership levels are exploding, as they did when Clinton was president.
Funny I haven’t read that…I’ve read POLITICAL APPOINTEES and POLITIICANS and members of the SPLC say their numbers are “exploding” but the IRS nor the FBI seems to think their numbers are exploding, UNLESS you count dissent as “terrorism.” And opposition to Barak as “sedition.” Now in that case, yes their numbers ARE exploding.


I think I would take their word for it more than Insta-hack. By the way is there anyone who thinks their readers are dumber than Instapundit does his? It's just a series of daily outrages to make you ANGRY! If you're not a domestic terrorists, why would the topic make you angry!

I don’t know why did the non-existent questioning of the patriotism of Hillary and the anti-War Crowd make them so angry?

Jason said...

Wow. There are oodles of terrorists in the United States all of a sudden. But according to libtards, "there were no terrorists in Iraq. None."

F***ing idiots.

Bill said...

Where do you get the idea that there was nothing partisan about the Okla. City bombing? Of course it was partisan-- it was an attack on a federal government building motivated by right-wing outrage against the Clinton Administration. Many if not most Americans have a difficult time understanding the issues that motivated the 9/11 attacks ("They hate us for our freedom"-- yeah, that's it.), but McVeigh, a terrorist in every sense of the word, notwithstanding the fact that he was a white American male, was pretty explicit about his motives.

shoutingthomas said...

...it was an attack on a federal government building motivated by right-wing outrage against the Clinton Administration.

The outrage was McVeigh's alone.

McVeigh doesn't represent anybody. You just made that up because it suited your purposes.

I call bullshit.

Nice try, though.

Pogo said...

"probably because the tea party shit is just about the worst thing going on in american politics."

Well, 'the worst thing going' as far as Obama and the Democrats are concerned. But the GOP is none too happy about them either.

rhhardin said...

The point would be that Clinton depended on Oklahoma City as a displacement (subthread: displacement of what?); as he is doing today.

Lyssa Lovely Redhead said...

I don't think that Clinton has been quite right since his heart surgery. Think about it: a formerly masterful politician became an unmitigated disaster at trying to get his wife through the primary (counterargument: that could have been intentional), and most of his public appearences of late (other than his charitable work, which is great) have been no more intellectually engaging than to scream "racist!" "violent!" at the opposition.

Serious heart surgeries are often followed by depression; I can certainly see how it would be particularly harsh for a man who was so full of vitality to be cut down and forced to face his mortality. Added to that is his lack of a "place" in the world following his presidency. I just don't think his mind is working the way it used to. I feel kind of sorry for him.
- Lyssa

shoutingthomas said...

Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon

Obama launched a campaign in Ayers' living room.

Balfegor said...

Yet here is Bill Clinton using his special prominence today to unleash a political attack to push back a populist movement that threatens his political party.

It's no different than what he did back then, when he blamed Republicans and talk radio for the bombing.

lemondog said...

Jefferson to Adams
Do you intend to ship out the entire French population in the United States .......along with any other luckless soul who happens to voice a contrary opinion?

Substance McGravitas said...

Yet here is Bill Clinton using his special prominence today to unleash a political attack to push back a populist movement that threatens his political party.

With death. A reasonable thing to do.

Substance McGravitas said...

A reasonable thing to do.

Obviously the reasonable thing I meant was not that the Tea Party should threaten Democrats with death but that saying such rhetoric is a little kooky is OKAY.

froggyprager said...

To answer Althouse’s question, the reason that WJC is bringing attention to this is because it is a real serious scary issue. The message of anger and violence that you hear by the Tea Party fans in the media and among some involved with the movement is real. I realize that most Tea Party people have no thoughts of domestic terrorism but some, and it only takes a few, may be pushed in that direction. He is not engaged in silly partisan pot shots, he is raising attention on a serious problem.

campy said...

I call bullshit.

Well, the guy's got the name for it.

Billshit?

SteveR said...

"...it was an attack on a federal government building motivated by Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Michaels Fortier's outrage against the Clinton Administration." Fixed

Meade said...

Evidently, Substance McGravitas wasn't obvious enough.

Peter V. Bella said...

HD House, in his senility and decrepitude ignores the long history of the glorious violent left.

The riots, the bombings, the murders, stretching from the early part of the last century through the 1970's.

Were they so innocent too House? Or did they, as your revisionist unstable historical mind, fight the good fight versus non-violent protesters redressing grievances against their government.

BTW, now go change your Depends and drink Some more ensure Kool Aid.

The political left is the worst shit to ever happen to America.

shoutingthomas said...

I repeat.

Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon.

President Obama launched a political campaign in Ayers' living room.

Philip M said...

Talking about hypothetical violence certainly takes the focus off of
actual violence.

The excuse for ignoring this, rather than condemning it (as Republicans are demanded to do even with attacks that don't happen) is that there is no proof that Jindal's son being beaten outside of a Republican event was politically motivated. Sort of like the shot outside of Cantor's office was random gunfire, not because of evidence to that effect but because they couldn't find out anything. We rest assured though that had they, unless Clinton himself was the triggerman, it would have somehow not been the left as a whole's fault even as any childish prank on the right would be cause for shock, outrage, and as much hypocrisy as could be mustered.

Scott M said...

@Bill

motivated by right-wing outrage

...possibly, but it was executed by extremism. Extremism doesn't need a left or a right. It's extreme. Extreme = not mainstream. Extreme = way, way outside the norm. While more than a quarter of Muslims in the world believe that suicide bombers are okeydokey, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that over a quarter of people that advocate for small government and spending only the money we have think bombing federal buildings is okeydokey. If you can produce some, I'll give it due consideration.

Many if not most Americans have a difficult time understanding the issues that motivated the 9/11 attacks ("They hate us for our freedom"-- yeah, that's it.)

I've been told, point blank, by Muslims I worked with in Saudi, that no other reason is necessary to hate us beyond the fact that women sit in judgement of men every day in the US. So, yeah, freedom is party of it. Why dismiss that so casually?

Hagar said...

In fairness, I think Janet Reno was too new to have had much to do with Waco, except signing off on it when she was told to. I think it was Bill Sessions trying to save his job, possibly after being goosed by Bill Clinton himself, but then he got fired anyway.

However, she certainly was a compliant tool in the Elian Gonzales case, and I have grave suspicions about her behavior in the Clinton impeachment investigations.

Joe said...

To answer Althouse’s question, the reason that WJC is bringing attention to this is because it is a real serious scary issue. The message of anger and violence that you hear by the Tea Party fans in the media and among some involved with the movement is real. I realize that most Tea Party people have no thoughts of domestic terrorism but some, and it only takes a few, may be pushed in that direction. He is not engaged in silly partisan pot shots, he is raising attention on a serious problem.

So the same can be said of CAIR and the anti-War Movement, right? I mean all the people who marched in the streets, we’d be well-advised to watch Muslims and Leftists, too, because you know they MIGHT harbor a few bad apples who would be moved to violence.

Of course it seems the violence is more on the SEIU side of things rather than the Tea party, but hey whatever makes you feel good, right.

themightypuck said...

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Franco said...

Clinton doesn't really FEAR this type of thing. He DESIRES it - which is why he is talking about it.

Lem said...

I realize that most Tea Party people have no thoughts of domestic terrorism but some, and it only takes a few, may be pushed in that direction.

Beam me up Scotty.

Lincolntf said...

Clinton, who has never been burdened by an overabundance of decency, has been tasked to try to recover the "middle" that Obama has lost. The Libs are hoping that if they can get people to fall for BIlly's lies one more time, it will save them from crushing defeat.
The fact that Bill is attempting to link the business owners, working moms, veterans, cops, students and retirees that make up the Tea Partiers to Tim McVeigh is simply a sign of their desperation. Fortunately, everybody who has attended a TP, or who knows a TP attendee, is aware that Clinton is full of sh*t.
While he's busy being the Official Concern Troll of the Obama Administration, his own reputation is being shredded even further. Keep it up, Bill.

Substance McGravitas said...

it was executed by extremism

Well perhaps there should be a war on extremism.

Brian said...

@garage:
By the way is there anyone who thinks their readers are dumber than Instapundit does his? It's just a series of daily outrages to make you ANGRY! If you're not a domestic terrorists, why would the topic make you angry!

So if Instapundit links an article about criticism of Obama's new NASA policy coming from former astronauts, this is just going to get domestic right wing terrorists angry so they start blowing people up?

On the flip side, there were nearly daily postings on DailyKos and Huffington Post about the latest outrage of the Bush Administration, whether it was torture or warrantless wiretapping or how corrupt they were. Or how religious conservatives were trying to create a caliphate and end teaching of evolution, etc.

I assume from garage's logic that they were motivating liberal people to get ANGRY. So they were trying to motivate left-wing groups to get violent and blow things up.

Paul Zrimsek said...

"Dissent is the highest form of terrorism." -- Stuff Jefferson Said, Vol. 3

garage mahal said...

So if Instapundit links an article about criticism of Obama's new NASA policy coming from former astronauts, this is just going to get domestic right wing terrorists angry so they start blowing people up?

Eh, no. But Althouse and Instapundit want their readers to think everything is a slight to their readers. "They're all calling you a racist". "They're all calling you a terrorist". In other words, everything they are accusing the other side of doing.

AllenS said...

Any thoughts on what transpired at Waco, garage?

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't think that Clinton has been quite right since his heart surgery.

Actually I think it was Hillary getting shoved aside for the former very junior senator from Illinois. That and the realization that he and Hillary! weren't as quite as popular in Dem circles as they thought they were.

Peter V. Bella said...

This is all nonsense. It is the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy trying to control the message. Any response, especially denials or defenses, will be trashed.

This is nothing new. The Left is very good at controlling the media, thus controlling the conversation.

They did this in the 1960s before they had the FBI and CIA spy on and infiltrate the dissident groups.

Liberals hate dissent- even if it from their own kind. It must be repelled, put down, and destroyed. They learned very well by studying the use of power- people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Peano said...

When a writer warns at length of a threat without providing a single specific example -- as Clinton does -- you can be sure he intends to convey as his subtext: "You know who I'm talking about."

It's a sleazy rhetorical tactic because it accuses without identifying the accused. But it works: Everyone knows who he's talking about.

Alex said...

hdhouse:
probably because the tea party shit is just about the worst thing going on in american politics.

Those tea partiers are teh Nazi~

Alex said...

garage - answer the question!!!

Hoosier Daddy said...

from the Op-ed:But we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws.

This is a pretty amazing statement considering that for almost 8 years we nothing from the left but demonization of the government. Where was Bill’s concern then? I’m not seeing much demonization of the government from the Tea Party as much as demonization of out of control deficit spending.

lemondog said...

It's a sleazy rhetorical tactic because it accuses without identifying the accused.

He's a politician.

Alex said...

Bill Clinton has no business telling citizens what they can and can't protest. Fucking fascist.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Could it be that Clinton is talking about the right wing rhetorical tradition of calling into question the legitimacy of government every time a Democrat assumes the presidency?

Sure left-wingers did that to Bush and Reagan. The difference is, those people were on the fringe. Today, it's the highest ranking members of the conservative establishment and actual legislators, like Tom Tancredo, chanting "Go back to Kenya."

Also, there were no left-wing terrorist attacks during the Bush administration. Black-block vandals in seattle was as bad as it got.

The right wing fringe is way more dangerous, because of guns and military fetishism.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sure left-wingers did that to Bush and Reagan. The difference is, those people were on the fringe.

Funniest thing I've read all day.

Alex said...

MM - shut up you fucking fascist Nazi pig.

Meade said...

Bears repeating a second time, a third, and more:

shoutingthomas said...
"I repeat.

Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon.

President Obama launched a political campaign in Ayers' living room."

Guilty as hell, free as a bird.

AllenS said...

I think it's becoming obvious that garage mahal doesn't care if American women and children are murdered.

Brian said...

@garage:
Well I would generally agree. President Clinton's Op-Ed is fairly bland; you have to be a bit touchy to believe the line "but we do not have the right to resort to violence — or the threat of violence — when we don’t get our way" is necessarily directed at the Tea Party movement if you don't believe you are a violent movement.

But its the partisan times we are in. Who exactly is this statement directed to anyway? Are militia groups going to be impressed by an op-ed in the NY times? No, I think this op-ed is directed to Times readers who are already in the liberal/Democrat/moderate camp who voted for Obama. It's to assure them that they are on the "right" (correct?) side, that the opposition has only outrage to express, but that this allows individuals to make threats, so we must watch out for extremists who may try to carry out these threats.

@MM:
Sure left-wingers did that to Bush and Reagan. The difference is, those people were on the fringe.

I didn't realize the congressional black caucus was a "fringe" group.

jeff said...

"Don't understand why when Napolitano or Bill Clinton are talking about domestic terrorists, the right wing thinks they're talking about them?"

Possibly because Napolitano or Clinton SAY they are talking about them. Jesus Garage, are you a Moby for the right?

Montagne Montaigne said...

This post is more and more puzzling now that I've reread it. So, commemorating the 15th anniversary of the OKC bombing is not allowed, because the tea party exists, or something? and even though Clinton never said the words tea party, he is talking about the tea party? And PS, Bill Ayers! Who also blew up a federal building, and worked with Obama. So, even steven?

total, utter BS. shameless, flagrant BS.

pm317 said...

F said...

And you forgot to add: the bombing was motivated by McVeigh's outrage at the Clinton administration's burning of 168 people in Waco. Clinton has a convenient memory. F
----------------------

Thank God, no McVeigh like character has emerged since Bush sent 1000s of soldiers to their death in a war of choice in Iraq and trying to do it on the cheap with his idiot defense secretary.

cubanbob said...

Clinton created McVeigh. Bush executed McVeigh.
Whenever Clinton speaks always remember he is the only president to have been found legally guilty of perjury.

Joe said...

I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
I believe this great American sums it all up, don't you?

edutcher said...

First, never forget Willie is an attention whore - it goes with being a sociopath. Remember how he showed up at Ground Zero hugging everybody he could grab a few days after 9/11?

Second, he is as hard core a Leftist as The Hildabeast or The Zero and this is another piece in his and the Ragin' Cajun's master plan to discredit the Tea Partiers - which isn't doing too well.

Other people's attacks include saying that the Tea Parties' dissent now borders on sedition (where's John Adams when they need him?) and Rush is "dangerous" (you know the Lefties are in trouble when someone 'frightens' them because they're 'dangerous') because he calls the current administration a regime.

Don't often agree with shoutingthomas, but when the man's right...

rhhardin said...

Something or other ridge.

Choctaw Ridge.


That was Billie Joe McAllister. You're getting old.

kcom said...

"The message of anger and violence that you hear by the Tea Party fans"

Yeah, right. Show me the "message of violence." Seriously. No, really. There is no message of violence. You're just making that up. People bring their kids to the Tea Parties. And their grandmothers. Do you think they would do that if they were planning violence? You're just repeating a smear with no basis in fact.

The only violence at Tea Parties so far has been by those opposed to it. The only arrests, by those trying to disrupt it. Please learn some facts before you spout off again with casual smears that don't stand up to examination.

For comparison, here's a real message of violence:

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

Hmmm, who said that? Show me anything similar from a Tea Partier.

Or perhaps the message of violence is hiding out with those curiously shy n-words that are said to be floating around Washington but that no one can seem to find. Maybe we should get Nicolas Cage on the case - he seems to be good at finding things hidden in mysterious places in and around Washington.

Meade said...

Joe said...
I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
I believe this great American sums it all up, don't you?

Who said that, Joe?
Sarah Palin?

Adam said...

Early spring is the season for pruning. See how simply the question that is the title of this post can be answered after being pruned properly?

"Why is Bill Clinton...making such a spectacle of himself...?"

Now it's much clearer that we should be discussing psychology, not current events.

gk1 said...

This reminds me of carter's feeble charge that those who opposed obama's policys were racists. After an embarassing couple of days carter later lied he said any such thing and allowed that regular people might have a reason other than racism to oppose obama. This will be the same thing, as clinton's charge is dead in the water, and looks, well pretty silly.

jeff said...

Montagne Montaigne also a Moby for the Right? No one can be that self-unaware. Or suffer from that size of projection. Did you suffer a head injury and your memory started from yesterday forward?

Joe said...


Who said that, Joe?
Sarah Palin?


I can't remember, Meade, it was some rightwing broad, though, I'm pretty sure...

Montagne Montaigne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

Actually, if you listen to the audio, she really put emphasis on "any". As I say a-way upthread, and have said since last year, I don't know why each and every Tea Party isn't started with this audio shrieking from the speakers.

Joe said...


I don't know why each and every Tea Party isn't started with this audio shrieking from the speakers.


Uh because of the word "shrieking"....

Rose said...

Because what we have now is not government by and for the people, we have government by and for the PARTY.

Bill Clinton is one of the worst offenders, but he is by no means the only one. It is grotesquely irresponsible for our elected representatives to play this game. It is a dangerous game with potential serious consequences if they push it as far as some of us think they might.

Where was Bill Clinton (and Pelosi et al) on the truly violent protests of the recent past, which required police in riot gear armed with tear gas and full weaponry... Seattle, the anarchists, Code Pink, earth First! ALF and ELF - where were our elected representatives when Rodney Coronado threatened tree-climber Eric Schatz's life?

And why is Bill Ayres glorified? You want to talk about violence...

It sickens me what is happening.

cubanbob said...

"
Montagne Montaigne said...
Could it be that Clinton is talking about the right wing rhetorical tradition of calling into question the legitimacy of government every time a Democrat assumes the presidency?

Sure left-wingers did that to Bush and Reagan. The difference is, those people were on the fringe. Today, it's the highest ranking members of the conservative establishment and actual legislators, like Tom Tancredo, chanting "Go back to Kenya."

Also, there were no left-wing terrorist attacks during the Bush administration. Black-block vandals in seattle was as bad as it got.

The right wing fringe is way more dangerous, because of guns and military fetishism.

4/19/10 11:22 AM"

" Sure left-wingers did that to Bush and Reagan. The difference is, those people were on the fringe. "
Those people are the government today.

"Could it be that Clinton is talking about the right wing rhetorical tradition of calling into question the legitimacy of government every time a Democrat assumes the presidency?"

Setting aside the left does precisely the same whenever a Republican assumes the presidency you skirt around the issue that indeed the Democrats do act in an illegitimate fashion.

" Also, there were no left-wing terrorist attacks during the Bush administration."

You are entitled to your opinions but not your facts.
There were left-wing terrorist attacks by environmental nuts during the Bush Administration.


"Today, it's the highest ranking members of the conservative establishment and actual legislators, like Tom Tancredo, chanting "Go back to Kenya."

Unless he has officially renounced his citizenship he still is a triple national; Kenyan, Indonesian and American making Tancredo technically correct.

It was said of the Clinton's that they were unusually good liars (not really). Obama on the other hand is an unusually brazen and prolific liar. At least Nixon had enough of a conscious that he couldn't lie with a straight face.

To paraphrase Hillary, it takes a village to raise an idiot and somewhere in Kenya a village is missing it's idiot.

Big Mike said...

Well, the liberal Democrat establishment tried pushing the line that the Tea Party protesters were really just a bunch of racist know-nothings. Only that didn't wash. No one who isn't already desperate to find reasons to hate the Tea Party buys into that meme.

So, the liberal Democrat establishment is trying to push a different meme -- the Tea Party protesters are themselves mostly okay people, but there are fringe types in their ranks and a modern Timothy McVeigh could be encouraged to act violently by the fact of the protests.

Well, I don't buy it. I don't think most people buy it. I think that the Timothy McVeigh types will be less encouraged to act violently if they perceive that peaceful methods centered on winning elections works, and violence doesn't.

(Keep in mind that McVeigh was responding to Waco, but despite his bombing of the Murrah Building -- and probably even because of McVeigh's bombing of the Murrah building -- Clinton and Reno were more firmly entrenched than ever.)

JAL said...

Clinton had previously (only a couple days ago) connected the tea party and violence and OC. So it is no stretch to connect the dots, gm. That is, if you follow the news instead of the talking points.

To think that you were unaware of that was too much for my brain to comprehend. You being intelligent and articulate and all that. (Don't know about clean.)

Here (note how the AP slides in the descriptor "anti-government" to the tea parties.)

and Former President Clinton warns tea party could feed extremism

MadisonMan said...

Choctaw Ridge.

That was Billie Joe McAllister. You're getting old.

Pass around the black-eyed peas.

JAL said...

Would Tim McVeigh have been reassured by the growth and influence (still to be seem) of the tea parties?

I don't think so. There is something cultic about some people's wiring.

Cultic in the sense of a closed system obsession. Paranoia on the continuum helps.

Of course, I always wanted to know more about Terry Nichols connection with the radicals (muslims?) in the Philippines. Remember? His wife was Filipino and he visited several times (IIRC) and not always with her, prior to the OC bombing.

JAL said...

BTW -- we MISSED a most important date: April 18.

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church ...

( Rest Here)

Paul Revere's Ride by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

We need to keep things in perspective. We are a nation of heroes.

AllenS said...

Sorry, JAL, but I believe Paul Revere was a white guy.

garage mahal said...

and Former President Clinton warns tea party could feed extremism

You would be a great fundraiser for the GOP, which much of this is about. The only bit in that link about the tea party from Clinton was positive.

AllenS said...

HD,

If you look at my picture, I'm kind of a dark skinned looking dude. Do I count?

JAL said...

There are still a lot of "card carrying" Democrats who are apoplectic about the 2000 election.

They still think Bush was illegitimately put into office by a slanted SCOTUS, and that Gore won.

So the claim that election illegitimacy is the special corner of the right falls on deaf ears here.

garage mahal said...

Aren't you Objiwe Allen?

JAL said...

Remind me -- who are the demonstrators at the G8 and World Trade meetings?

Ghandi would be proud. /s

Just Lurking said...

Why is Bill Clinton suddenly making such a spectacle of himself over the Tea Party?

Because the left is desperate. They can't control the message about the TPers. They will throw everything at them to see what sticks. So now an attempt to link O's opposition to domestic terrorists.

And notice that the old line about the TPers being uneducated rubes has to be replaced since polls indicate TPers are wealthier and better educated than the general population. A new stereotype is being generated to replace the old. (But that WP article stills desperately plays the race card.)

The reality is more likely that the movement attracts a fairly diverse group of Americans, which is why attempts to marginalize it have been unsuccessful; and why this administration fears it so much.

As more people go to Tea Parties, they see that the smears are just lies. And they get angry at the liars. It will be good for the Repubs if the Dems keep playing this name-calling game all the way to November. Keeps the anger, among the people who actually vote, from fading away. It's almost as if the Dems want to lose their majority.

JAL said...

@ AllenS: LOL

Fen said...

So now an attempt to link O's opposition to domestic terrorists.

CNN is also part of the propaganda attack. Over the weekend, they did a special on domestic terrorists, with some "expert" on Lone Wolf actions. CNN insterspersed bombing aftermath scences with pics of a Tea Party hat.

Pravda at work.

Alex said...

CNN is also part of the propaganda attack. Over the weekend, they did a special on domestic terrorists, with some "expert" on Lone Wolf actions. CNN insterspersed bombing aftermath scences with pics of a Tea Party hat.

Yeah but given only 100K people actually watch CNN, I don't see that having much impact on the election. Now if Fox News suddenly was trying to link TP to domestic terrorism that would be something.

edutcher said...

I mentioned a few other attacks in the same vein as Willie's, but it took me a while to find the article. Joe Klein and Chrissy Mathews, what a pair.

Totally OT: Goldman Sachs sold its soul to The Zero, Slobbering Barney, and the rest of the Demos the way Krupp and Farben did to you know who, now the SEC is going after them. Payback - it's not just for the little guy.

AlphaLiberal said...

Bill Clinton no longer has freedom of speech?

Kathleen Parker made a very good point in her recent column:

The challenge for all, but especially the media, is to find a balance between vigilance and restraint. How do we expose the unhinged without emboldening them with attention? Inevitably, the lone operator hears his own name summoned from the crowd.

The only palatable answer is what conservatives say they love best: self-control and personal responsibility. When someone spews obscenities, shout them down. When politicians and pundits use inflammatory language, condemn them.

When you choose to remain silent, consider yourself complicit in whatever transpires.

AllenS said...

garage,

Does my point of view count more than cracker-assed HD's?

Fen said...

Cable News Ratings for April 11, 2010

Prime Time
FNC –858,000 viewers
CNN – 451,000 viewers
MSNBC – 485,000 viewers
CNBC – 219,000 viewers
HLN – 314,000 viewers

2327

Yeah but given only 100K people actually watch CNN, I don't see that having much impact on the election.

I get your joke, but at 20% of the market is not insignificant. number.

And I'm sure MSNBC will follow suit with more of the same, bringing it up to 40% exposed to the constant smear that Tea Party = Terrorists.

Fen said...

AlphaLibtard: Bill Clinton no longer has freedom of speech?

Nope, Bill Clinton no longer has freedom of speech. You are such a genius when you play with your strawman.

AlphaLiberal said...

We've seen a LOT of right wing violence in the past few years. Just today we have armed right wingers rallying on the anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism.

Good thing President Clinton spoke up. Here is a brief and incomplete list of recent right wing political violence:

* IRS building destroyed by suicide pilot.

* Shootings at Pentagon.

* Abortion doctor murdered.

* Holocaust museum shootings.

* Hutaree militia stopped before they go on a killing spree.

There's more. The right wing leadership, including people like Sarah Palin, keep stoking these people up.

Alex said...

Fen - good point bring up the latest ratings. CNN + MSNBC have more viewers on the nightly news then Fox. So yeah they are at least as influential on the outcome of election. Frankly I'm scared shitless for America.

Alex said...

Alpha:

* Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon
* Ted Kacyinski unabomber
* ELF terrorists
* PETA terrorists

oh and * Shootings at Pentagon. was a LEFT-WINGEr you douchebag.

Fen said...

/edit

...but 20% of the market is not an insignificant number.

/and

Lost: Strawman, much abused. If found, please return to AlphaLibtard so he can suck its balls

AlphaLiberal said...

Personally, I think a lot of right wingers are sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh. They're very close to him ideologically, they sport the same "fertilize the tree of liberty" quote and share McVeigh's anti-government views.

Hopefully they do not share his ability to kill.

Just Lurking said...

When someone spews obscenities, shout them down.

Correct. Just like the white-haired Tpers did to the foul-mouthed Palin haters in Boston.

Fen said...

Alphatard: The right wing leadership, including people like Sarah Palin, keep stoking these people up.

No one has called for violence, except for Obama. So by your standard, we can lay all the assaults on Republicans at his feet and start impeachment proceedings.

Because you are really concerned about political violence, Alpha. Thats why you whitewash it when your own peeps do it. barf.

AlphaLiberal said...

Alex:

* Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon

That was 40 years ago!

* Ted Kacyinski unabomber

Dude was crazy.

* ELF terrorists

I am not responsible for them. I do not share their rhetoric. Unlike you and the right wing violence-prone I have no problem denouncing their tactics. (No denunciation of militias, OTOH).

* PETA terrorists
GMFB. "terrorists?" Who is terrorized by PETA, for cripes sake?

Alex: "oh and * Shootings at Pentagon. was a LEFT-WINGEr you douchebag."

Bullshit. He was anti-government and, obviously, had a fondness for guns. That is RIGHT WING.

Fen said...

AlphaLibtard: Personally, I think a lot of right wingers are sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh.

Personally, we all think you are projecting. Again.

You've made no secret of your fantasy revenge violence against those who disagree with you. You're so typical if the fascist Left. I bet you jack off to McVeigh's poster over you bed each night.

Scott M said...

@AlphaLiberal

Pro-choice people don't want the government to make laws making abortions illegal. Pro-life people do. Who's anti-government there?

Just wanted to get your take on that before we proceed. It all seems to black and white, you should be able to answer that easily.

Fen said...

AlphaLibtard: That was 40 years ago!...Dude was crazy... I am not responsible for them... I do not share their rhetoric.

See what I mean? WHITEWASH.

I don't know why Alpha thinks anyone here would consider him credible. He's defines a registered Democrat as Rightwing simply because he beleives the perp was anti-gov/pro-guns. That should tell us everything we need to know about AlphaTard's judgement and bias in this matter.

Hoosier Daddy said...

He [Pentagon shooter] was anti-government and, obviously, had a fondness for guns. That is RIGHT WING.

Yes Alpha because its common knowledge how much the right wing despises the United States military.

AlphaLiberal said...

Other examples of violence from the freaked out and paranoid right wing:

* Richard Poplawski, a right-wing extremist who shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers.

* Remember the shooter, Jim David Adkisson, who hates liberals and shot up a liberal church in Tennessee? He was a big O'Reilly and Hannity fan.

* There was the guy who walked into Arkansas Democratic headquarters and shot and killed the state chairman, Bill Gwatney.

El Pollo Real said...

Alpha wrote: I think a lot of right wingers are sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh. They're very close to him ideologically, they sport the same "fertilize the tree of liberty" quote and share McVeigh's anti-government views.

Personally, I think you sound sympathetic to Ward Churchill and Reverend Wright. You're very close to them ideologically, you sport the same "chickens coming home to roost" and "little Eichmann's get what they deserve" mentality.
But I wouldn't try to characterize a whole bunch of people like that- just you personally Alpha.

AlphaLiberal said...

And, to my critics, when I say "why isn't Bill Clinton entitled to free speech," I am responding directly to Ann Althouse's post, criticizing Clinton for even speaking while having little to nothing to say about the content of his remarks.

She is twisting his remarks to ignore the rising right wing violence and the irresponsible rhetoric from "leaders" who are helping to foment it.

Althouse is, from her lack of criticism, not bothered by the rising right wing violence.

Scott M said...

@Alpha

While I wait for your answer to my previous question, I'll pose another. Let's assume, for argument's sake you're 100% right. What then...what's the appropriate federal governmental response...what would you do?

Just out of curiosity, mind you, as I can't imagine you're continuing down this vein simply for snark. I mean, there's got to be point to be made, right? (doh, two questions...don't get confused...just answer the first one)

madawaskan said...

Here is the end or near end of Clinton's speech:

They didn’t vote for me in Oklahoma in 1996. It was still a Republican state.

But I loved them anyway[...]


I kid you not.

transcript- April 16,2010

madawaskan said...

This one goes out to you, Bill:

Ramble On

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:

Pro-choice people don't want the government to make laws making abortions illegal. Pro-life people do. Who's anti-government there? .

WTF?

The anti-abortion movement is a conservative movement, especially in Kansas. The killer has been lauded by some leaders, see Operation Rescue, in this movement.

The killer Scott Roeder has a personal history of anti-government extremism. he was in "The Freemen." He was active in Operation Rescue.

Fen said...

AlphaTard: Remember the shooter, Jim David Adkisson, who hates liberals and shot up a liberal church in Tennessee? He was a big O'Reilly and Hannity fan.

As were Asad Ansari and Shareef Abdelhaleen. So I guess in your world, 9-11 was a right-wing terror op?

Brian said...

@Alpha:
That was 40 years ago!

So domestic acts of terrorism have a statute of limitations as far as political advocacy go? Somehow, I doubt you would excuse an indicted former militiaman becoming a political mentor of a conservative presidential candidate.

I am not responsible for them. I do not share their rhetoric. Unlike you and the right wing violence-prone I have no problem denouncing their tactics. (No denunciation of militias, OTOH).

You got us. I'll go ahead an denounce the tactics of that militia group that was infiltrated in Michigan recently, led by that registered Democrat.

Bullshit. He was anti-government and, obviously, had a fondness for guns. That is RIGHT WING.

Che was fond of guns, too, Alpha, as a tool for revolution.

Cedarford said...

Generally, commentors here all say their side "deplores violence" because ALL matters are best left to be solved with no violence or threat of violence...all must worship the Sacred Parchment...accept Rule of Lawyers then in power, etc.

But what we see is democracy and the Ruling Elites having to take into account the THREAT of violence in decision making all through US history. Strip people of certain rights and oppress them - with no recourse through corrupted legislatures, ideologically "fixed" courts or other institutions - and you have violence or mini-revolutions.

Or concerned people that then move to address the concerns of the dispossessed precisely because they fear potential violence threatens their interests more than stonewalling.

Agrarian revolt intimidated the Federalists, riots checked Banking interests excesses, Jacksonian and violent popular revolt shifted power. The mass violence of the Civil War forced change and more rights. The pervasive corruption of railroad and banker cabals was checked by the Grange revolt. Union violence backing organization against employer violence and use of laws they paid to be written against workers led to better wages & conditions. 20s anarchists. Black riots led to black entitlements, not the Love of Saint Martin. Violent draft protests helped end the Draft.

All the while, when all that violence backed change was happening in the past 230 years, as well as now, you have people posturing and maintaining "violence is never the answer"...when of course it always looms in the background in times of great strife.
The US was born of violence, not teams of lawyers from the colonies and Britain meeting and then issuing edicts on what the lawyers decided.

And Tim McVeigh....
Let us say that in the Oklahoma bombing and 15 years since, right-wingers globally have killed under a thousand people. Islamoids about 4 million. Leftists in lands like N Korea, Peru...about 2 million.

But in those 15 years, no doubt there have been dozens of proposals by some very eager "Law enforcement" heroes to have a big armed raid directed at this or that organization. With Hero agents storming the nefarious people's compound with guns at the ready, camera crews in tow for what they think will be great publicity and to photo the "weapons arsenals". And as the proposal wends its way up the chain of command of the FBI, DEA, what was ATF now in Homeland Security.....at some point somebody kiboshes the hare-brained assault. Basically because they remember the Ruby Ridge trial or thinking a mass slaughter of cult kids will create another Tim McVeigh.

Memories of McVeigh and avoiding creating new McVeighs is now is a check on the power-wielders that entertain the thought of intimidating the citizenry by violent "law enforcement heroes" raids.

Violence works some of the time, and sometimes violence has led to the betterment of the citizenry. It is always there as a possibility if senior decision makers cross lines. So it deters them.

AlphaLiberal said...

What would I do about WHAT, Scott?

I answered your question on the the right wing killer Scott Roeder. You can always do your own research.

c3 said...

I just want to know what happened to the disgust with the
Politics of Fear

AlphaLiberal said...

Fen:

So I guess in your world, 9-11 was a right-wing terror op? .

No. Nor was it left wing.

Though Bush did ignore all the warnings about terrorism until it happened.

Alex said...

And don't forget the Fort Hood massacre, which is inspired by lefty multi-culti nonsense.

Brian said...

Though Bush did ignore all the warnings about terrorism until it happened.

Yes, and I'm sure Al Gore would have personally connected the dots and stopped it just in the nick of time.

Or are you of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job?

Scott M said...

I answered your question on the the right wing killer Scott Roeder. You can always do your own research.

Not even close. Go read my question again and answer it. It has nothing to do with anyone that's shot anyone else. The question is, I thought, self-explanatory in and of itself.

Please try again.

AlphaLiberal said...

Brian:

So domestic acts of terrorism have a statute of limitations as far as political advocacy go? Somehow, I doubt you would excuse an indicted former militiaman becoming a political mentor of a conservative presidential candidate..

No, we are living NOW. NOW there is no left wing political violence, outside a couple spats at rallies someone could (and will) point out.

The ACTUAL real-world violence and rising threat of violence toward the American people TODAY comes from the right wing. And it's continuing, and they continue to make threats.

And there is ZERO pushback from conservatives against this violence. Instead, they deny, and make excuses for, the violence.

MamaM said...

"How do we expose the unhinged without emboldening them with attention?"

Parker outlines the challenge AlphaLiberal presents.

wv ignoidi

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:

The question is, I thought, self-explanatory in and of itself. .

It was not part of this conversation, then. It made no sense.

I already read it twice.

Look, the left did not use violence-laced language such as we hear now constantly from the right AND THEIR LEADERS.

Lanuguage like "beat them to a pulp," "dead man," "revolution," "reload."

But I get it. You guys will continue to push things more and more extreme and to make excuses for the violent people in your midst.

Got your number. You are enablers of political violence, who exercise no restraint.

madawaskan said...

Alpha and Bill Clinton need a trip down memory lane:

It was nearly 10 p.m. on New Year's Eve, 1982. Two officers on New York Police Department's elite bomb squad rushed to headquarters at One Police Plaza, where minutes earlier an explosion had destroyed the entrance to the building. Lying amid the carnage was Police Officer Rocco Pascarella, his lower leg blasted off.

"He was ripped up like someone took a box cutter and shredded his face," remembered Detective Anthony Senft, one of the bomb-squad officers who answered the call 25 years ago. "We really didn't even know that he was a uniformed man until we found his weapon, that's how badly he was injured."

About 20 minutes later, Mr. Senft and his partner, Richard Pastorella, were blown 15 feet in the air as they knelt in protective gear to defuse another bomb. Detective Senft was blinded in one eye, his facial bones shattered, his hip severely fractured. Mr. Pastorella was blinded in both eyes and lost all the fingers of his right hand. A total of four bombs exploded in a single hour on that night, including at FBI headquarters in Manhattan and the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.

The perpetrators were members of Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN (the Spanish acronym), a clandestine terrorist group devoted to bringing about independence for Puerto Rico through violent means. Its members waged war on America with bombings, arson, kidnappings, prison escapes, threats and intimidation. The most gruesome attack was the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in Lower Manhattan. Timed to go off during the lunch-hour rush, the explosion decapitated one of the four people killed and injured another 60.

FALN bragged about the bloodbath, calling the victims "reactionary corporate executives" and threatening: "You have unleashed a storm from which you comfortable Yankees can't escape." By 1996, the FBI had linked FALN to 146 bombings and a string of armed robberies -- a reign of terror that resulted in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims.

Scott M said...

And there is ZERO pushback from conservatives against this violence.

Patently false. I hear, multiple times a week, calls from right-wing talking heads to keep it peaceful, not to resort to violence. I've heard many times right-wing pundits saying some version of "because if you let it get violent, we loose".

Is that sufficient pushback or do you think a private citizen should drive to someone house and bitchslap them before they go commit political violence?

Michael said...

Alpha Liberal: "She is twisting his remarks to ignore the rising right wing violence and the irresponsible rhetoric from "leaders" who are helping to foment it."
Alpha, all the real violence I read about is being committed by lefties and union thugs whereas all the imaginary violence is being committed by the right wing. "Rising right wing violence" is out of the play book, but it doesn't comport with any facts other than the "facts" that are now routinely a part of the propaganda which was once eschewed by thinking liberals. But perhaps you are a "progressive."

madawaskan said...

On Aug. 7, 1999, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. African embassy bombings that killed 257 people and injured 5,000, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to the victims of terrorism, vowing that he "will not rest until justice is done." Four days later, while Congress was on summer recess, the White House quietly issued a press release announcing that the president was granting clemency to 16 imprisoned members of FALN. What began as a simple paragraph on the AP wire exploded into a major controversy.

Mr. Clinton justified the clemencies by asserting that the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes. None of the petitioners, he stated, had been directly involved in crimes that caused bodily harm to anyone. "For me," the president concluded, "the question, therefore, was whether their continuing incarceration served any meaningful purpose."

His comments, including the astonishing claim that the FALN prisoners were being unfairly punished because of "guilt by association," were widely condemned as a concession to terrorists. Further, they were seen as an outrageous slap in the face of the victims and a bitter betrayal of the cops and federal law enforcement officers who had put their lives on the line to protect the public and who had invested years of their careers to put these people behind bars. The U.S. Sentencing Commission affirmed a pre-existing Justice Department assessment that the sentences, ranging from 30 to 90 years, were "in line with sentences imposed in other cases for similar terrorist activity."

The prisoners were convicted on a variety of charges that included conspiracy, sedition, violation of the Hobbes Act (extortion by force, violence or fear), armed robbery and illegal possession of weapons and explosives -- including large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive, dynamite and huge caches of ammunition. Mr. Clinton's action was opposed by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. attorney offices that prosecuted the cases and the victims whose lives had been shattered. In contravention of standard procedures, none of these agencies, victims or families of victims were consulted or notified prior to the president's announcement.
...
Observed Judge George Layton, who sentenced four FALN defendants for their conspiracy to use military-grade explosives to break an FALN leader from Ft. Leavenworth Penitentiary and detonate bombs at other public buildings, "[T]his case . . . represents one of the finest examples of preventive law enforcement that has ever come to this court's attention in the 20-odd years it has been a judge and in the 20 years before that as a practicing lawyer in criminal cases."

The FBI cracked the cases with the discovery of an FALN safe house and bomb factory. Video surveillance showed two of those on the clemency list firing weapons and building bombs intended for an imminent attack at a U.S. military installation.


Wall Street Journal

Fen said...

Alpha: there is no left wing political violence, outside a couple spats

Losing a finger, a beatdown that requires hospitalization, a broken jaw, a leg broken in 5 places... all "spats" in AlphaLibtard world.

WARNING: Alpha's irrational posts about violence can be read into the pattern of all liberal facists - they routinely accuse the Right of what they themselves are about to do.

He's searching for anything that will justify violence on his part. Thats why he's reaching so hard to find "examples" of right-wing violence. He needs to be able to tell himself "they do it too!".

Maybe someone should tip off the FBI before more conservative Americans are put in the hospital.

Scott M said...

It was not part of this conversation, then. It made no sense.

It IS a part of this conversation if the term "anti-government" keeps getting bandied about.

The people that I know that have been and continue to go to tea party rallies are NOT anti-government. They are pro-small-government. They are pro-fiscal responsibility. They are NOT anarchists.

Fen said...

AlphaTard: Look, the left did not use violence-laced language

"I want you to get in their face... if you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard"

Did someone hijack you account Alpha? You are more stupid than usual today.

Fen said...

Alpha jumps the shark:

"Bush did ignore all the warnings about terrorism until it happened."

How desperate. How feeble.

madawaskan said...

What about this Alpha from Gawker.com after Bobby Jindal's head of fundraising was beaten up outside of a campaign fundraiser in New Orleans:

While drunk Republicans in impoverished cities that their party allowed to be literally drowned just might deserve whatever the f*ck they get, there's no indication that a Republican couple was beaten up in New Orleans last Friday for political reasons.

Gawker.com

That's a Liberal media source that is a lot more well read ,and has a lot more advertising by corporate sponsors with a blatant support or excusing of violence yet-Bill Clinton is worried about blogs...

What about doing something about that, Alpha?

madawaskan said...

Fen-

Alpha got mixed up there he meant to say-

*Clinton* did ignore all the warnings about terrorism until it happened.

Cedarford said...

AlphaLiberal said...
Personally, I think a lot of right wingers are sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh. They're very close to him ideologically, they sport the same "fertilize the tree of liberty" quote and share McVeigh's anti-government views.
Hopefully they do not share his ability to kill.


There always exists in the citizenry or groups within the citizenry a capacity for violence, even a willingness to kill - if the Rulers cross them too much.

This sometimes has to be explained slowly and carefully to an eager young Leftist lawyer on Barney Franks staff who points out that it is possible that liberals now have enough power they could slip a 10,000% tax on ammunition in a Bill or get a compliant Leftist judge to ban ammo sales. A senior Democrat takes the eager young Leftist aside and says, yes, but it would cause mass violence. When the Leftist says, "great! that would show how wrong the evil gun owners actually are...and everyone would condemn them since Violence IS Never The Answer!!" ...wiser folks would point to history and how effective certain violent movements have been in shifting events.

As things now stand, Ruling Elites in both Parties are pretty fearful of the mess they have created undermining the Elite's wealth and power in a new populist revolt that DOES include violence/mass civil disobedience to "Rule of Lawyers".
And of the specter of citizens remembering that the tea parties WERE violent,DID break "The Sovereign Laws". Of unions mustering out and blocking roads if a carbon tax or VAT threatens members. Of a new McVeigh that will make something liberals want to do as unthinkable as doing armed raids of Fed agents out of the blue on ideological enemies now is, "thanks" to McVeigh.

raul said...

Scott M said..."The people that I know that have been and continue to go to tea party rallies are NOT anti-government. They are pro-small-government."

What exactly doe "small government" mean, Scott?

And which part of the government do YOU and the other tea baggers want to eliminate?

Blaming President Obama is just right wing bullshit, and anybody who has ever actually read anything relating to government expansion under previous presidents knows that.

As an example;

An overview of George W. Bush's expansion, from an article in the Wall Street Journal:

"The most basic Bush numbers are damning.

If increases in government spending matter, then Mr. Bush is worse than any president in recent history."

1. During his first four years in office -- a period during which his party controlled Congress -- he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget.

2. The only other presidential term that comes close? Mr. Bush's second term.

3. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will added significantly to the bill).

(To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term.)

And regulation was even worse.

4. In 2001, some 64,438 pages of regulations were added to the Federal Registry.

5. In 2007, more than 78,000 new pages were added.

6. Worse still, Mr. Bush is the unparalleled master of "economically significant regulations" that cost the economy more than $100 million a year.

7. Since 2001, he jacked that number by more than 70%.

8. Since June 2008 alone, he introduced more than 100 economically significant regulations.

Were you and the tea baggers asleep on your sofas during Bush's eight years in office?

AlphaLiberal said...

Oh, and don't forget that Timothy McVeigh was a member of the NRA!

raul said...

I love the way the local tea baggers ignore the fact that 9/11 happened under George W. Bush's watch, yet spend every day of their lives here...blaming President Obama for the economic crisis he inherited from the same G.W. Bush.

If 9/11 had occurred under Clinton's watch you idiots would have been in full whine mode, blaming him for every aspect of the attack.

And you all know it, too.

madawaskan said...

Alpha is on to something though, if a terrorist plot gets by the Obama Administration or a lone whacko goes nuts (which tends to happen with more frequency when economic stress pushes borderliners and nuts to act out)-first thing Clinton wants everyone to think of is-

right wing extremists.

I think Clinton has reached troll status and it's probably hazardous to even respond to his machinations.

LarsPorsena said...

@Raul:
"Were you and the tea baggers asleep on your sofas during Bush's eight years in office?"

Yes Bush was crap but Obama is Bush cubed.

Raul, say hello to Fidel for me.

AlphaLiberal said...

It was bad news that the Jindal people, or anyone else, were beater up in New Orleans.

The right wing has tried to blame liberals for this violence. That is unfounded.

New Orleans police denied knowing motives in the attack.

More on the police report here..

Remember the "backwards B" supposedly carved on that your McCain campaign worker's face? Why don't you guys bring up THAT one, eh?

You keep eluding responsibility for the violence-laced and death-laced right wing rhetoric. Typical.

Scott M said...

raul

What exactly doe "small government" mean, Scott?

A federal government constrained to its 17 (if memory serves) Constitutional powers would be a good first step. As a basic second step, a small government would only be able to spend what it takes in, no more.

That would be an excellent start.

By the way, going way, way out of your way to justify your point of view by pointing to all the thing Bush did or didn't do doesn't traffic with me at all. I left the GOP over his administration. Your rant is nothing more than you thinking you've got everyone else figured out.

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:

It IS a part of this conversation if the term "anti-government" keeps getting bandied about.

Oh, BS. Are you actually pretending that the right wing is not anti-government? Puh-leeze. Get honest for a change!

Hoosier Daddy said...

I love the way the local tea baggers ignore the fact that 9/11 happened under George W. Bush's watch, yet spend every day of their lives here...blaming President Obama for the economic crisis he inherited from the same G.W. Bush.

I love the way you think one has anything to do with the other.

Just for the record, Obama didn't inherit anything. He actively campaigned and spent a few hundred million dollars begging the electorate to give him the job.

madawaskan said...

raul-

Get some perspective if Clinton had responded properly to the bombing of the Khobar towers and the USS Cole if he had treated US soldiers as equal to US citizens maybe the terrorists would not have escalated, maybe we could have made the environment less friendly for them to organize and plot away.

If the territory of the US embassies of Tanzania and Kenya had been considered US sovereign territory by Clinton and responded to more effectively perhaps other countries would have gotten the message and we would have had Al Qaeda playing defense instead they had the luxury of going on offense and they were given the motivation that they had to hit civilians and US territory proper before the US would take them seriously.

Michael said...

No left wing violence?

You bring a knife and we will bring a gun.

Sirhan Sirhan
Lee Harvey Oswald
William Ayres
Chicago Days of Rage
Miami Republican Convention
World trade organization riots
Ted Kaczynski,
Environmental crazies

Cedarford said...

Scott M - "I've heard many times right-wing pundits saying some version of "because if you let it get violent, we loose".

The problem listening to multimillionaire right wing pundits is they are part of the Establishment. They recognize that right wing voodoo economics, dereg and liberate the financiers of Wall Street, brainless free trade boosterism, and being deep in bed with the corporatists and shared Democrat ideas like real estate scams and Open Borders - helped create the dire condition America is now in...and any violent revolt could hurt their bottom line.

Nothing would please those right wing pundits more than 10 more years of maintaining powerless seething people eschewing violence and devotedly patronizing the services of right wing pundits. Who make a living telling them how messed up everything is but "listen to what wealthy conservative Elites say you should do...because violence is never the answer.."

Because the Goldman Sachs bankers on the Republican side are better and more right than the Goldman Sachs bankers on the Democrat side?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Were you and the tea baggers asleep on your sofas during Bush's eight years in office?

Looks like Jeremy has a new sockpuppet.

Michael said...

Alpha: The right is not anti-government, it is anti-leftwing-government. The right wants to run things again, only better this time.

Scott M said...

Oh, BS. Are you actually pretending that the right wing is not anti-government? Puh-leeze. Get honest for a change!

The frothing you're doing must be blinding you just a tad. Please explain to me how the pro-lifers are anti-government. I'm really interested in seeing how you connect those dots.

I'll make it easy for you. Small government is a right-of-center staple. On the far left you've got bigger and bigger government until you reach totalitarianism. On the right, you've got smaller and smaller government until you reach anarchy. Neither of the extremes are good for human society.

madawaskan said...

Alpha-

That's not the issue I am addressing.

I'm asking you why Clinton is worried about non commercial barely read blogs when Gawker.com a Liberal media outlet (that is widely read with lots of advertisement)-doesn't bother him when they are advocating or justifying the beatings or worse of any Republicans because of Katrina.

No Liberal is bothered with it. No criticism just looking for calls of violence in euphemisms what Gawker is doing by comparison is pretty direct.

Anil Petra said...

Clinton (and Carville) Plotting Tea Party Counterattack back in February -- before Clinton's more recent cardiac incident -- according to Andrew Breitbart.

Isn't it likely that, back then, they crafted the plan to redemagogue Oklahoma City?

raul said...

LarsPorsena - That's cute, but I see, as usual, you really can't substantiate the ridiculous notion that President Obama is at fault for an expansion of government.

Screaming for "smaller government" immediately following such a dramatic expansion by a president you and other voted for twice is just wrong-headed.

Fen said...

Libtard: I love the way the local tea baggers ignore the fact that 9/11 happened under George W. Bush's watch

9/11 was enabled and planned under Clinton's watch, while he was busily distracted molesting interns.

And whats with the "tea-bagger" slur? Please stop offering to suck our balls, sicko.

g2loq said...

I find this latest Clintonesque, in your face display, hard to take.
Another stake in any feeeeling of fellowship I might have for Democ.rats.
There IS two Americas.

Still awaiting a street riot by conservatives clad in Ronaldux Maximus T-shirts ....

Fen said...

AlphaLibtard: Are you actually pretending that the right wing is not anti-government?

Some of us are intelligent to recognize that less government != anti-government.

YMMV.

Cedarford said...

raul said...
I love the way the local tea baggers ignore the fact that 9/11 happened under George W. Bush's watch, yet spend every day of their lives here...blaming President Obama for the economic crisis he inherited from the same G.W. Bush.


That reflects the stupid "single man causing all historical events" thinking taught in public schools. Brain-dead public school grads come out thinking Saint Martin did create all civil rights on his own, Lincoln himself was why the Civil War happened, and everything awful that befelled America in the last 5 years was all the personal doing of George Bush.

The "single man driving" each and every event - thinking - pervades partisan politics. The Left is as bad or worse than the Right at it - hence the idiot assertions that bringing bin Laden to justice will end violent radical Islamism or listening to the wisdom of Algore will save Mother Earth.

The responsibility for America's economic decline as a nation are diffused.
Most of the suspects are people on the Left and Right and pure venal people of no ideology but maximizing their personal power and wealth - that no President has control over. And the seeds of our destruction go back to include multiple Administrations and collectively stupid decisions by the entire US citizenry.

edutcher said...

AlphaLiberal said...

Personally, I think a lot of right wingers are sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh.

People are free to think anything they want, doesn't make it the least bit true, however.

Are you actually pretending that the right wing is not anti-government?

No, they're pro-Constitution and free market and anti-intrusive, statist government. There is a difference.

(Actually, he probably doesn't)

raul said...

Scott M - Do you think repeating your initial comment somehow negates the information regarding Bush's expansion?

Why not tell me why the expansion of government is so important now, yet evidently mattered little to you during the Bush years. And if it mattered, where are your comments taking Bush to task?

As for this;

Hoosier: - "Just for the record, Obama didn't inherit anything. He actively campaigned and spent a few hundred million dollars begging the electorate to give him the job."

Obama, like all candidates, certainly spent plenty to get elected, and he never said anything about not know what he was walking into, but that doesn't mean you and others can just act as if what Bush left behind means nothing. Are you saying Johnson didn't inherit the Vietnam War? How about Nixon? Neither of them created the situation.

You also constantly conveniently ignore the fact that he signed an 800 billion dollar bailout (which I am grateful he did, considering the alternatives)...was that also something Obama should take the blame for?

You and others are cherry-picking what you want to see, while ignoring facts at hand.

raul said...

edutcher "People are free to think anything they want, doesn't make it the least bit true, however."

Do you believe President Obama was born outside the U.S.? Do you believe he's a Muslim?

raul said...

Fen said..."Some of us are intelligent to recognize that less government != anti-government."

What does that mean?

raul said...

Fen said..."Some of us are intelligent to recognize that less government != anti-government."

What does that mean?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 303   Newer› Newest»