Nicolle Wallace has Republicans and drone strikes on the noggin.
Yesterday, we caught MSNBC analyst and former FBI agent Clint Watts saying on Wallace's show that if Anwar Awlaki had said what Trump said, the result would be a "drone strike."
Wallace took it an insane step further on her show this evening, saying:
We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years, and under the Obama years, of attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, and in the case of Anwar Awlaki, an American, a Yemeni-American, with a drone strike for the crime of inciting violence, inciting terrorism.
. . .The way you root out terrorism, is to take on, in the case of Islamic terrorism, kill those who incite it.
Wallace might claim she was only talking about Awlaki and Islamic terrorism. But for the second night running to, in any way, shape, or form, put incitement to "domestic terrorism" in the same breath as killing with "drone strikes" is deeply dangerous, and insane. Why was she possibly even talking about drone strikes in the context of dealing with domestic terrorism?
Again, as I wrote yesterday: "and the left shrieks about the right inciting violence?"
Nicolle Wallace once again airing the notion of dealing with "domestic terrorism" via "drone strikes" was sponsored in part by USAA and Otezla.
Here's the transcript.
MSNBC
Deadline White House
1/29/21
5:34 pm ETNICOLLE WALLACE: There's a bulletin released to all law enforcement earlier this week, that there is, until the end of April, a persistent threat of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism carried out in the ideology and around this belief that the election was fraudulent, that the Covid restrictions are unnecessary. All of those ideologies pushed by Donald Trump.
But my question for you is around incitement. We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years, and under the Obama years, of attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, and in the case of Anwar Awlaki, an American, a Yemeni-American, with a drone strike for the crime of inciting violence, inciting terrorism.
Mitch McConnell was in the Senate then. He was in the Senate after 9/11 too. How does Mitch McConnell, who understands that the way you root out terrorism, is to take on, in the case of Islamic terrorism, kill those who incite it. How does he not vote to convict someone that he said, on the floor of the Senate, incited an insurrection?
