Confronted by a Thinkprogress Blogger today over his rationization and justification of the Suicide Plane Attack by Joseph Stack against the IRS - Rep. Steve King blows his top.
Here's the transcript of what Rep King say when confronted with this...
TP: Do you think this attack, this terrorist attack, was motivated at all by a lot of the anti-tax rhetoric that’s popular in America right now?
KING: I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.
TP: So some of his grievances were legitimate?
KING: I don’t know if his grievances were legitimate, I’ve read part of the material. I can tell you I’ve been audited by the IRS and I’ve had the sense of ‘why is the IRS in my kitchen.’ Why do they have their thumb in the middle of my back. ... It is intrusive and we can do a better job without them entirely.
When asked directly if he thought the anti-tax rhetoric of groups like the Tea Party were responsible for the attack - he essentially said they were, and that the IRS needs to be abolished, clearly justifying the attack against them.
That's what he said, there's no denying it. His first thought at the time wasn't to be concerned with IRS workers and the lives which were at risk - it's was his own political anti-Tax Agenda!
Now he was confronted with his own words and his response was this...
TP: It is tax day and you justified the murder of American federal employees at CPAC.
KING: Are you accusing me of that? Are you accusing me of that? Turn that camera off. I’m not going to have those allegations. You accuse me of murder. That is despicable behavior.
TP: I’m sorry — I did not say that, I did not say that.
KING: That is despicable behavior for any American on this earth to do such a thing.
TP: The camera is off –
KING: We are done.
He didn't accuse you of murder Congressman King, he simply quoted paraphrased you, and he did so accurately fairly. (ed. King had a perfect chance, both times - to make the distinction that he didn't like the IRS but wasn't endorsing murder - he didn't) You had a chance to denounce a murderer, you had a chance to make a statement against violence - you chose instead to come up with reasons for why that violence might be JUSTIFIED. Period. End of Story.
Y'know what's "despicable" Congressman King?
You are.
Vyan
Join the Democratic Non-Violence Project - where starting on Waco/Oklahoma City Day (April 19th) we put the question to members of Congress, do you unequivocally oppose All Forms of Domestic Political Violence or do you feel like Steve King that the IRS had it coming?
And for the Record:
Washington D.C.
1131 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202.225.4426
Fax: 202.225.3193
http://steveking.house.gov /
Update: Let me address some of the commentary that has occurred while this is still rec'd because I do think the issue of where the rhetorical line should be drawn is important.
Rep. King's primary problem is a Sin of Omission. He was first asked if inflammatory Anti-Government Rhetoric could be contributing to increased incidents of violence against the Government. It would be fair to say he ducked that question and tried to be a smart-ass by injecting his own inflammatory rhetoric which amounted to - "If they'd only done what I'd suggested - people wouldn't need to fly planes into the IRS building, it wouldn't be there". His response specifically endorsed the Destruction of the IRS and the idea the people attempting accomplish that violently are only doing so because they didn't previously listen to Steve.
Now we have to use some supposition, since by ducking the core of the question his point isn't absolutely clear, and I think it's completely fair to do so because that's all Steve has provided in both instances. At best he was using the occasion of a tragedy to toot his own anti-tax anti-IRS horn, at worse he's saying the failure to implement his ideas made that event - either inevitable, justified or necessary. Take your pick, Steve left all the wiggle room in the world.
It's fair to say there's a difference between stating that a particular point of view is valid and saying that violence based on that view is valid. But since King didn't answer the point of the question - "is this rhetoric contributing to violence?" - it's very hard to see where he falls between that distinction, however common sense says that the words have meanings and they can indeed inspire people to action. Politicians should know this because That's THEIR JOB, to use rhetoric to inspire people into action. Usually voting. Although sometimes these days it's being "Armed and Dangerous" or "Reloading, Not Retreating" etc...
Logic says that Rep. King knows this too. If he feels that inflammatory rhetoric can inflame people into violence, and he responds with MORE inflammatory rhetoric it could be argued that he himself was trying to inspire more violence. If he believes the opposite, that it doesn't matter what some people say other people are occasionally going to do something wacky, then he's IMO clearly a Dickhead, but not a supporter or justifier of violence.
The problem is we can see what King believes when he says this:
I can tell you I’ve been audited by the IRS and I’ve had the sense of ‘why is the IRS in my kitchen.’ Why do they have their thumb in the middle of my back. ... It is intrusive and we can do a better job without them entirely.
He's showing sympathy with the aggressor here, identification with the motives of the murderer. He's not showing any sympathy for the dead and injured IRS employees. None what-so-ever. Even if you give him the biggest benefit of the doubt possible, he still comes out stinking.
Also there's another factor here in that King himself grows hostile and violent simply from being asked an admittedly inflammatory rhetorical question - "Do you still support your justification for murder?" So even if he doesn't believe that harsh words can make people violent, he's demonstrated that it can!.
We may disagree as to which is the most accurate inference to draw from the many things King didn't say in opposition to violence - but none of the possibilities make King look much better than he already does.