From ABC’s AM on Monday, on the rise of anti-government rhetoric in the USA:
BILL CLINTON: A lot of the things that have been said, they create a climate in which people who are vulnerable to violence because they’re disoriented, like Timothy McVeigh was, are more likely to act. We ought to have a lot of political dissent a lot of political argument. Nobody is right all the time but we also have to take responsibility for the possible consequences of what we say.
LISA MILLAR: After first raising his concerns two days ago the former president has been criticised by conservatives including talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: With this comment – you have just set the stage for violence in this country. Any future acts of violence are on your shoulders Mr Clinton.
Is Limbaugh’s comment somehow completely out of context? (I heard it told the same way on another report from a different outlet.)
How does it make even the slightest bit of sense? You can argue that Clinton is being alarmist by making a link back to McVeigh, or being overly critical of the Tea Party movement, sure. But when Clinton asks people to be mindful of inciting violence, Limbaugh responds that it’s therefore Clinton’s fault if it happens?
It’s not just at odds with the traditional conservative view of taking personal responsibility, unless I’m missing something fundamental, it also makes no sense whatsoever.