Bill Clinton Doing What Bill Clinton Does Best
Leave it to Rush to expose Bill Clinton for doing what Bill Clinton does best. Earlier this week, Bill Clinton criticized the TEA Parties, saying that some of the rhetoric might incite violence, just like talk radio incited Tim McVeigh’s bombing of the Murrah Building:
“What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold, but that the words we use really do matter, because there’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike,” he said.
Here’s Rush’s rebuttal to Bill Clinton’s misrepresentations:
RUSH: Yesterday we had the tea parties, and the Drive-By Media (I’m sure to its great chagrin) is filled with stories about how festive and how peaceful and how unthreatening all of the tea parties were. The effort to infiltrate these tea parties fizzled. They have stories on that that they probably do not like having to report. And, ladies and gentlemen, it’s very clear that these citizen uprisings, genuine grassroots citizen’s uprisings, are far more powerful than an attempt to drum up fake opposition to them from the White House. Yet, Bill Clinton is back in the game, expanding that threat via this sound bite.
CLINTON 2010: There was this rising movement in the early nineties that was basically not just a carefully orchestrated plot by people of extreme right-wing views but one that fell into fertile soil because there were so many people for whom the world no longer made sense. They wanted a simple, clear explanation of what was an inherently complex, mixed picture full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy, but personnel conduct and imagination about the world we were living in. So demonizing the government and the people that work for it sort of fit that, and there were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our economic problems was the federal government itself.
RUSH: So there you have it: Bill Clinton once again trying to rebirth his empty threat from 1995. He starts out tracing the plot that started in the eighties to “demonize government.” I have a question. We have two more sound bites of the president here specifying right-wing talk radio, but I have a question: How come we’re supposed to draw (on the basis of no evidence), a connection between conservatism and terrorism, conservative ideology and terrorism? Where is that connection? Yet we are told we must reject, despite tons of evidence, the connection between Islamist ideology and terrorism. So we can’t call Islamist fundamentalists “terrorists.” We can’t even use the word. But we can have ex-presidents and current presidents running around trying to associate conservatives with nonexistent terrorism at peaceful tea parties. Somebody needs to explain this to me.
The truth is that Timothy McVeigh’s attack was triggered solely by his disgust with Janet Reno’s Justice Department’s invading the Branch Davidian compound with tanks. It didn’t have anything to do with talk radio. It didn’t have anything to do with what happened in the 1980s.
Whether you agree or disagree with Ms. Reno’s decision, and most don’t, the reality is that Tim McVeigh said that her invading the Branch Davidian compound with tanks was what triggered his terrorist attack.
If President Clinton wants to peddle these misrepresentations, he’s best off peddling them to people who won’t remember history. This is nothing more than Bill Clinton sounding the same Democratic theme, suggesting that the TEA Party participants are knuckle-dragging, backwoods crazies. Unfortunately for Mr. Clinton, that myth has been exposed.
Every time that the Democrats trot that storyline out, they ruin what’s left of their credibility. People don’t run to liberal pundits for their information anymore. Thanks to Al Gore’s internet, people do their own due dilligence on whatever subject interests them. Right now, the TEA Parties interest them. ALOT.
One in five people support the TEA Party movement. Many more than that know people that participate in TEA Party rallies. TEA Party activists are everyone’s neighbors, co-workers and friends. Mainstreet America isn’t frightened by the TEA Parties. Whether they agree with the TEA Parties’ principles or not, they aren’t frightened by TEA Parties.
Having Bill Clinton suggest that the TEA Party faithful might incite violence just gives the American people another reason to not trust Bill Clinton. Some things never change.
Technorati Tags: Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, TEA Parties, Conservatism, Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, Branch Davidians, FBI, ATF, Democrats, Tim McVeigh, Murrah Building, Terrorism
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
April 18th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
The elitism and arrogance was thick enough to cut with my ceremonial sword.
There he was like some Britsh Lord, 3 peice suit, reading glasses, white hair, wagging his finger in admonishment.
The obvious message to us peasants; protest is fine, but dont get so carried away with it that you are successful.
April 18th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
And then there’s the old line from Clinton’s MonicaGate days: How can you tell when Clinton’s lying? His lips are moving.
The world never changes, at least not for Clinton.
April 18th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
What happened? Did Bill Clinton balance the budget again only have a Republican president start two wars without paying for them?
Oh, now that I read the article, it looks like Republicans are saying the Oklahoma City bombing wasn’t Timothy McVeigh’s fault, it was Janet Reno’s fault, so was therefore justified. Damn liberals! Making people bomb government buildings because they disagree with policies!
April 19th, 2010 at 5:04 am
They are losing bad, at every level. So we get the Clinton replay again.
April 19th, 2010 at 11:31 am
If you’d calm down a minute, Liem, and look at the facts, you’d see that (even though McVeigh was labeled a right-wing extremist nut case) McVeigh’s political theory falls much more in line with yours than with conservative thought - he was all for an all-powerful government making every-day decisions for everyone for the betterment of the government.
Doesn’t sound too conservative to me, but an awful lot like our glorious leader/messiah and his pack of social misfits.
April 19th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Tea party is nothing more than the honest working pepole who are pissed off and sick and tired of playing by the rules, working their asses off, paying their taxes only to see the same bunch of crooks at the top piss it all away, and still get the big piece of chicken one too many times. Not only that, but seeing the incompetents in government that screw things up walk away from the disasters they create, without loosing their jobs, and not being held responsible.
April 20th, 2010 at 1:28 am
You’re totally right Carlos. The next time a supposed right-wing extremist nut case bombs a government building and blames the US government, let’s blame the US government for passing policies that crazy people disagree with and leads them to blow up government buildings.
Only Republicans can keep us safe from exploding government buildings.
April 20th, 2010 at 8:18 am
@Liem: You’re missing the point Liem. The point is that Clinton and other liberals would like to paint the Tea Party as being associated with the Oklahoma City bombing and more recently the guy who shot up the Pentagon gate security. Both of these violent men associated themselves very closely with liberal, big government, socialist ideology. Yet, Clinton, and the media, which belongs to the current administration, want to paint passionate conservatives, republicans, tea party members, anyone that opposes as a violent extremist with potential to cause harm. While all of these Tea Parties, Town Hall meetings, radio broadcasts, etc are taking place peacefully with passionate rational disapproval and invited debate. Another perfect example of this is the painting of Lee Harvery Oswald, who shot John F. Kennedy, painted as a right wing extremist when he was a card carrying member of the communist party, as left as you can go.
April 20th, 2010 at 8:23 am
@ Liem: But you know, you could just keep spewing venom sarcastically without making any intellectual rebuttles in true to form liberal emotionality.
April 20th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
So if teabaggers are “honest working people who are pissed off and sick and tired of playing by the rules, working their asses off, paying their taxes only to see the same bunch of crooks at the top piss it all away,” then where were they when Bush started two wars without paying for them?
And more importantly, where will teabaggers be when Wall Street regulations enters the debate phase? Will they side with the Democrats, who are pushing for stronger regulations so another housing bubble inflated by corporate banks will never threaten the US economy again? Or will they side with the Republicans, who have been threatening to filibuster any such regulation?
@Judson: So you’re saying the signs that compare Obama to Hitler invite debate? That the signs that demand government to keep away from Medicare encourage rational discussion? All I see are a bunch of sore losers who listen only to what they want to hear because everything else is too liberal. If Fox News is the most popular cable news show in the country, doesn’t that make them the mainstream media they’ve always hated?
April 20th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Did i use the words Republican or Democrat in my rant? Did I ?
Did I say specify Bush or Obama? Huh?
And who chose go the slime route calling them “teagbagger”?
I may be an asshole to you, Liem, but I promise you, Im a consistant and civil asshole.
April 21st, 2010 at 10:40 am
Liem your obviously smart, sarcasm and satire being a sign of intelligence.
So quit acting like a junior high punk, and open your eyes.
The issue here is way beyond the petulent and petty political vomit from the blogoshere.
“Our” government; not mine, not yours, OURS, has racked up more debt in the past 2 ot 3 years that it has for its entire history. This current President, and this incompetent, willing Congress, whether we like it or not, are bancrupting our country for generations, and simultaneously turning us into a 3rd rate dictatorship. For what? Some kind of feel good nationalized health care? Our past “sins” as a nation?
Think about that for a minute instead who to blame, or who to dig for having the audacity to object. Because if you think that you, or your family, or future generations are going to be the big winners in all this, you better guess again kimosabe. The big winners in this are the same bunch of elitist union bosses, academics and politicians that have duped you and the last two generations into believing their marxist pigshit.
April 21st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Medicare, social security and defense comprise more than 50% of our nation’s budget. Medicare and social security all go to old people. But when Obama attempts to provide insurance to those who can’t afford it and aren’t old people, that’s when old people start to bitch and moan. You reek of selfishness.
There was no bitching and moaning about deficits and bankrupting policies when Bush started two wars he didn’t pay for. Iraq has cost $704 billion and Afghanistan $266 billion and counting, not to mention the death toll. If deficits were something you took seriously, you would be praising Clinton for balancing the budget. But only now do you start caring. Yes, the deficit is something Obama needs to address, but the recession on top of spiraling medical costs on top of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are also pressing issues that don’t come free. But when he talks about increasing taxes on those who make over $250k, you bitch and moan some more while voting against your own self-interest. You reek of hypocrisy.
I get that you disagree with Obama. Maybe because he’s black. Maybe not. But to call Obama’s year and a half in office both Marxist and dictatorship in one sitting just because you disagree with it makes the Tea Party look like crying babies throwing big words around. If you were serious at all about policies, you would have started this Tea party movement a long time ago. You reek of convenience.
So, no, you don’t have to use the words Republican or Democrat, and no, you don’t have to specify Bush or Obama. It’s glaringly obvious because you reek of simplicity.
April 21st, 2010 at 10:40 pm
All right!
Finally, we get something out of you besides wisecracks about Sara Palin.
I shouldn’t expect you to agree with me. Nor should you think you can convince me that of anything. Were from different era’s and cultures. But now that youve made yourself clear, I can respect that much.
Yeah I’m simplistic and all that rot. Call what you want, Ive been chewed out by the best of them.
I still think your smart, but a fool none the less, for not realizing,how much your being screwed over by the very people you purport to admire.