Over at Greg‘s place, I explain that while I’m skeptical that “political rhetoric” is to blame for the Tuscson shooting, the Republican reaction makes it clear that they understand that the tone of much of conservative criticism crosses a line.
One other thing I’d say, although I don’t know exactly what to make of this observation: The President of the United States has asserted the right to kill an American citizen abroad because of alleged crimes the evidence for which, based on public knowledge, consists almost entirely of speech. Violent, hateful speech, exhortations to violence even, but speech nonetheless. The argument for doing so is premised at least in part on the idea that someone may act on his rhetoric even if he does not personally direct them to do so, that even if he isn’t personally involved in the logistical planning of terrorist attacks, his ability to speak the language of the West in his defenses of terrorism represents such a dire threat to national security that he must be killed.
Like I said I don’t know what to make of that, I just think it’s worth noting.
