Kinzinger’s reaction, which included nearly a dozen posts, demonstrates a common pattern observed among certain political commentators, often signaled by a Ukraine flag in their social media profiles. Kinzinger’s argument was that not all individuals present at the Capitol on January 6th were peaceful, pointing out that some engaged in violence against police and property destruction. This point, while valid in isolation, ironically highlights the selective narrative that Kinzinger and Cheney have been promoting.
For years, Cheney and Kinzinger focused exclusively on showcasing the violent aspects of the Capitol riot, ignoring the majority who were present without any intention of breaking the law. This selective portrayal has led to accusations that the January 6th Committee, which Kinzinger was a part of, deliberately misled the public by not acknowledging the peaceful protesters. Critics argue that this omission was driven by a desire to use the events of January 6th as a political tool, rather than a commitment to transparency and the whole truth.
Kinzinger’s recent posts, intended to counter Lee’s assertions, inadvertently exposed his own hypocrisy. His failure to present a balanced view of the events when he had the opportunity speaks to the political motivations that many believe guided the actions of the January 6th Committee. This approach stands in stark contrast to the values of transparency and full disclosure that he claims to uphold.
Furthermore, Kinzinger’s personal attack on Lee reflects a departure from the norms and decorum he previously advocated for, reinforcing perceptions of his inconsistency and partisanship. His response to Lee’s comments not only fails to refute the points raised but also undermines his credibility as a former congressman committed to upholding democratic principles.