Louve00
Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
|
I didn't check out all your links, Sanity. The one you posted about the Clinton Administration was from a Mozilla search engine and when I clicked the link with my IE version, I found this......
IN THE weeks since the Oklahoma bombing, a myth has been sedulously cultivated by both Democratic politicians and the liberal media (insofar as any distinction divides the two). It is that this mass murder was the consequence of recent conservative politics: that the main suspect, Timothy McVeigh, was an active member of a far-right violent militia, linked to other militias in a nationwide conspiracy, inspired by the anti-government rhetoric of Republican politicians like Newt Gingrich, conservative leaders like William Bennett, and talk-radio performers like Rush Limbaugh. Thus, Michael Lind in the Washington Post theorized that conservative leaders such as Mr. Bennett, William F. Buckley Jr., and Dan Quayle "had helped to legitimate the world-view of the Oklahoma bombers" by, among other things, "promulgating the inflammatory myth of an anti-religious, anti-family, tax-devouring government, guilty of mass murder on a scale that dwarfs that of Hitler and Stalin," and "feebly condemning anti-abortion zealots," including those guilty of murder. Curiously, Mr. Lind was an affable member of the conservative movement for most of this period. Did he simply not notice that his friends and colleagues were legitimating mass murder? Or did he think it good clean fun at the time? For the record, NATIONAL REVIEW has called for the murderers of abortionists to receive the death penalty.
There was a less inflammatory version of the same theory from Jonathan Alter (ironically, Newsweek's media watchdog): "From what we already know of the Oklahoma City crime, it's clear that the bombers took mainstream conservative ideas -- resistance to gun control, the United Nations, and a powerful federal government -- and made them extreme-right views." Well, it is possible that these claims will turn out to be well founded as the case progresses, but as yet we "know" nothing of the sort. What little evidence we have of McVeigh's opinions comes from two letters ("anti-government," according to Newsweek) to an upstate New York newspaper. One of these letters -- a strong attack on cruel methods of factory farming and animal slaughter -- might have been written by a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It makes no mention of government. The other, a confused ramble through several ideologies, is best categorized as a populist outburst from the angry center, with laments for the economic loss of the American dream and the threat of Japanese imports that come direct from Bill Clinton (circa 1992) and Dick Gephardt (passim). As for the suggestion that McVeigh was acting for the wider militia movement, all we have is a report that he went to, but was turned away from, one meeting of one militia. You would hardly hang a dog on such evidence, let alone a battalion of weekend soldiers in Camp Fantasy. To be sure, some members and some militia groups seem genuinely sinister. McVeigh may have been acting with or for them; let the evidence, not partisan hunches, determine that. As Alan Bock points out in this issue, however, some militia groups are little more than recreational gun clubs with false hair on the chest. If they deserve anything, it is the cure of mockery.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n10_v47/ai_16936563/
From the way I'm understanding this article. McVeigh hated the gov't and seemed to be intent on listening to the right. Not sure where the Clintons blamed him. Unless you want to post a link that says that more particularly.
_____________________________
For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli
|
RE: An Increasingly Unstable Limbaugh Blames Obama for ... - 
Profile
[Oh hell Ron, must have been that Royal 'we' 
that confused me in the other thread! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread