hate to say it but I see her point.
Maybe you could help me see it.
The American revolutionaries were fighting a colonial government led by a King of dubious sanity ruling from 3,000 miles away in an era when sailing ships were the fastest method of intercontiental communication, and imposing unconsionable burdens on the colonies for the financial benefit of Mother England, such as impressing American seamen for their Navy, imposing taxes on the people, and on and on. Their targets were the soldiers of the King, not innocent civilians.
I don't see that any of this applies to Bin Laden.
If her point is that all rebels are alike, she should then be including the IRA, the Red Brigades, Timothy McVeigh, the Basque separatists, and every other terror movement. If she wants to say that there is a sharp divide between government santioned use of force for political purposes and all other violence for political purposes, then I can agree that there is such a divide. But it seems to me a pointless distinction, and not the one she was trying to make.
Glorifiying Bin Laden is hardly, IMO, an appropriate policy position for an American elected leader to take. I am assuming, though, that she won't be an elected leader after the next election. |
