By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
In an interview with The
Washington Post, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-CT and star of Monday’s gun-control
theater, explained: “We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that
Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.”
Wow. That’s a pretty big deal, if true.
Progressive darling Elizabeth Warren also endorsed this
tactic, alleging that Republicans — veterans, moms, dads — were willingly
complicit in the murder of their neighbors on orders from the NRA. It’s common
for the Left to direct absurd and histrionic accusations at the NRA, as if the
organization printed its own money and derived awe-inspiring power from Mordor.
It’s a lot easier than having to debate millions of American gun owners who
cling to some reverence for the Second Amendment.
Although it may be lost in all the coverage, both Warren
and Murphy actually voted
against “common sense” gun control bills last night — twice. While
Republicans wouldn’t support bills that empower bureaucrats to act as judge and
jury, Democrats voted against bills that expanded background checks without
undermining constitutional rights.
You can’t accuse the GOP of sedition if you compromise,
after all.
We’ve come a long way since Hillary’s, “I’m sick and
tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this
administration, somehow you’re not patriotic.” The idea that the other side
might be debating in good faith is no longer entertained. Appeals to emotion
make no room for such subtleties.
With this, Warren is no better than Donald Trump. You
will remember the media distress when Trump insinuated (and later denied) that
Barack Obama was sympathetic to terrorists. You also might remember last week,
when John McCain blamed the president for the rise of ISIS, and we discussed
how terrible this was for an entire news cycle.
.@ChrisMurphyCT said it right: The
@SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.
- Elizabeth Warren 1:08 AM 21 Jun
2016
Surely indicting a major political party — in Congress,
this party represents the majority of the American people — of aiding Islamists
should be an equally big deal? Surely someone will ask Clinton to denounce this
incendiary rhetoric. Surely some melodramatic New York Times op-ed columnist will call out Warren for tossing
“the truth around with the callous disdain of a spoiled child.” I can’t wait
for the house editorials condemning attacks on decorum and cable news network
break-out sessions lamenting the putrid state of civility in Washington.
Can anyone remember a Republican, even in the height of
the Patriot Act debate, questioning a Democrats’ loyalty in this explicit a
manner? In contrast, Ari Fleischer’s “watch what you say” comment is a mild
rebuke. These days, Republicans who disagree with the president can be accused
of “betting against America,” “making common cause” with hardliners who chant
“Death to America,” and being guilty of conventional treason.
More consequentially, though, we’re also a long away from
liberals opposing extra-judicial watchlists that adjudicate guilt without due
process. On Monday, Democrats passionately argued that “potential” terrorists — a term used by more than one senator
yesterday — should be denied constitutional rights. These days, Democrats refer
to adherence of the Fifth Amendment as a way not to protect the innocent but as
a “terror gap.”
All of which can get a little confusing. Because while
Democrats in the Senate were accusing the GOP of conspiring with Salafi
jihadists, the administration was still acting as if the Orlando massacre had
nothing to do with ISIS — at all.
As counterproductive and absurd as the Obama
administration’s initial ham-fisted release of Omar Mateen’s 911 call
transcript was, it did offer us an illustration of how it wishes Americans would talk about Islamic terrorism. Which is to
say, it wishes you were talking about the NRA.
By Monday afternoon, the FBI had relented and released
the transcript of Mateen — sans laughable redactions — though still far from
complete or accurate. And, as many of you suspected, the omitted words from the
transcript were about ISIS, jihad, and other subjects Islamic terrorists tend
to touch on before slaughtering innocent people. Nothing about Mitch McConnell,
as of yet.
The Feds, according to NPR, were still claiming that
Mateen didn’t “seem to have exhibited any of the warning signs often associated
with radicalization,” and it’s possible that he was just saying the name ISIS
“in hopes of getting more publicity for his attacks.”
Fact is, Mateen referred to himself as a “soldier” of the
caliphate and pledged allegiance to ISIS — a group that congratulated him on
his success and took credit for the attack. As Rukmini Callimachi at The New York Times has extensively
detailed, Mateen was well-acquainted with the goals of ISIS and animated by its
specific ideas and political aims. His act, unlike other random, lone-wolf
shooters, was driven by ideas that are shared by people around the world. And
though they might be geographically compartmentalized, they act in ideological
concert to achieve clear goals. If they can’t use guns, they use pressure
cookers or an airplane.
Rather than demanding the FBI explain its failure to
protect the American people from a known terror sympathizer, Senate Democrats
used the attack to frame Republicans as terror sympathizers. Rather than
apologizing to the nation, the FBI spent the day offering tortured
justifications for redacting Mateen’s own words, claiming that anything less
would “only inflame other people here that might be like-minded.”
According to Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald
Hopper, for example, censoring Mateen’s words would “prevent future action from
happening” and “not give credence to individuals who have done terrorist acts
in the past.”
Islamic Radical 1: Did
you see that Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper refused to say the
name of our organization?
Islamic Radical 2: I
did! And, you know what, Omar? I hate America just a little bit less today. You
know what I mean?
In their campaign to ban guns, Senate Democrats have no
compunction bestowing ISIS with all the credit for the Orlando massacre. So
according to the administration, this rhetoric has the potential to “inflame”
prospective terrorists — unless, that is, jihadists are only irritated when
Republicans talk about them. Maybe Obama will explain how this works in his
next televised scolding.
In any event, if you don’t believe terrorism is an
existential threat to our way of life, listen to Democrats insisting that we
must circumvent constitutional protections to stay safe. Many Democrats who had
previously refused to acknowledge “Islamic radicalism,” now exploit a massacre
to accuse fellow Americans of abetting the worst mass shooting in American
history. It’s debatable whether any of their proposals would stop terrorists,
but this kind of emotional blackmail might seem like the most expedient way to
pummel the opposition. It is, certainly,
the most irrational.
No comments:
Post a Comment