Hmmm, let's see ... In the wake of the Boston bombings, we have Alex Jones claiming it's a "false flag" designed to drum up support for infringements on civil liberties. In response to an unconfirmed New York Post report claiming that a Saudi suspect is in custody, we have Fox's Erik Rush tweeting that we should kill all Muslims. And we have Pamela Geller declaring the bombers "Slaughterers in the cause of jihad," part of nonstop Twitter torrent of anti-Muslim outrage on her part.
So, when Dylan Byers of Politico harrumphed a while ago about "The Boston explosions, politicized," what struck him as so outrageous?
Answer: a tweet from Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times -- since deleted -- that read as follows:
explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-01/wor...Kristof later apologized -- which didn't prevent Jeffrey Goldberg from also going self-righteous:
Part of talking for a living is knowing when to shut up. It is obviously true that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives needs a director. It might even be true that Republicans could try a lot harder to put a director in place. But after an explosion about which we know almost nothing, and in the face of sudden, violent death at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, this is not the time to guess about the perpetrators or to recommend policy fixes that would prevent such attacks from taking place. It certainly is no time to suggest that a political party you happen not to like is to blame for a tragedy about which you know nothing.But Kristof did none of those things. He didn't speculate about the perpetrators, suggest that having an ATF director in place could have stopped the bombing, or say the GOP is responsible for the bloodshed. As I read the tweet, he just said that it would be nice to have a goddamn director for an agency that might be critical in getting to the bottom of this horrible act.
Should that be a controversial belief? Is it political to say that out loud? And is it not, in fact, the case that one party bears nearly all the responsibility for the fact that a full-time ATF director can't be confirmed?
Kristof never should have taken this back. He was right to post what he posted. I don't see any difference whatsoever between Byers and Goldberg's harrumphing and the attempt to silence anyone who mentioned gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook by saying it was "not the time to talk about it."
