By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the ambush-style shooting of National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz implied that President Trump bore responsibility for the death. Schultz argued the presence of the National Guard in U.S. cities, stemming from Trump’s policies, created the dangerous situation. She questioned Trump’s decision to deploy military troops, criticizing the lack of coordination with local authorities. The White House responded by placing blame on the Biden administration’s immigration policies.
Read the original article here
Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s statement, in essence, squarely places blame on Donald Trump for the tragic National Guard shooting in DC. It’s a sentiment born from a deeply felt conviction: the deployment of the Guard itself, a decision orchestrated by Trump, directly led to this avoidable tragedy. The core argument is straightforward – had these troops not been stationed in DC, they would still be alive. The tragedy is seen as a direct consequence of a political maneuver, a calculated risk that ultimately led to violence and loss of life.
The rationale extends beyond the immediate act of the shooting. The deployment is framed as a deliberate act, a move to create a crisis, almost as if the guardsmen were used as bait. The implication is that Trump was seeking to manufacture a sense of chaos and unrest, using the National Guard as pawns in a larger political game. This is a very serious accusation, suggesting a disregard for the safety of the troops and a willingness to exploit their presence for political gain. It suggests that this was not simply a reactive measure but a calculated decision with potentially dangerous consequences.
The focus shifts to the broader context of political responsibility. The statement highlights that this tragic event is another manifestation of Trump’s actions. The blame isn’t just about the deployment, but also about the rhetoric he’s used over the years, the way he has coarsened the political discourse, and the actions he has taken. The point is that Trump’s actions have contributed to a climate of violence and division. He is accused of inciting violence in the past, including trying to overturn the 2020 election. This is a claim of systemic failures as a result of Trump’s decisions.
The narrative also intertwines with criticisms of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, specifically regarding her alleged role in undermining Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. While acknowledging the shooter’s responsibility, the speaker sees Schultz’s actions as part of the broader political landscape that paved the way for Trump’s presidency. The assertion is that Schultz’s decisions ultimately influenced the political trajectory, indirectly enabling Trump’s rise to power.
The discussion acknowledges that the blame for the shooting lies with the shooter, but simultaneously asserts that Trump bears a significant degree of responsibility for creating the conditions that led to the event. The guardsmen should not have been deployed, and their presence made them targets. The discussion emphasizes the tragedy of the situation, the loss of life, and the potential for increased violence. It’s a complex interplay of blame, responsibility, and the broader political landscape. The argument is that while the shooter pulled the trigger, Trump set the stage for this tragedy to occur.