What she fails to have comprehended is that Loughner was surrounded by anti-government literature in his bedroom. Probably there are any number of similar weirdos with immature political thoughts based on hatreds and angers. She did tell supporters to "reload". She sounded as though the gun and politics were inextricably linked, if only in an allegorical way. Yet she says she is not to blame. Well, not directly so, that is abundantly true. But she must surely see that such language excites the feeble-minded.
In her rebuttal, she declares, "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election." What is she trying to say here? That whatever the rhetoric, such criminality as was witnessed on Saturday in Tucson, is nothing to do with the outside world? She must be leaving reason behind. Loughner may not have directly linked her with his actions. But he went out and targeted a politician because of his delusions about the state of the nation. What is being said is that loose talk like hers is dangerous in a febrile political environment. That's all. No reasoned person is suggestion she is the cause. Just that she should acknowledge that her rhetoric is not helpful. In that she has stubbornly and steadfastly refused to concede an inch.
And does she know what Blood Libel means? This Wikipedia entry might help!
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment