Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Killer Liberals

Took a stroll through a number of lib blogs last night and this morn, looking for some mention of the Waco anniversary.

(Image of vacant lots. Wind blowing stray paper. A broken fence.)

Now, I didn't visit every single site, so perhaps there are a few lib bloggers who said something. But I doubt it. As I posted yesterday, Waco for liberals is a non-issue. A murderous federal assault in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act does not stir in them anger or outrage. This is because their beloved Bill Clinton (using Janet Reno as his enforcer) oversaw and approved the action. After all, what says compassion more than some Bradley tanks crashing into your home, igniting fire while CS gas fills the lungs of your children, suffocating them before everyone is burned to cinder? And really, who cares about that when faced with a truly serious crime -- like Time magazine putting Ann Coulter on its cover?!

I did find a few libs acknowledging the Oklahoma City anniversary, a terrorist act that, unlike Waco, moves them to sorrow, and in one case, satisfaction in revenge. Lib blogger Roger Ailes offered a few "thoughts" on Oklahoma City, and while doing so decided that "Although I oppose the death penalty in almost all circumstances, I believe the execution of [Timothy] McVeigh was justified."

I oppose the death penalty . . . except when I don't. You'd think that one's opposition to state-sanctioned murder would, if principled, extend to the likes of McVeigh -- hell, esp in the case of McVeigh. It's in the worst case scenarios that one's beliefs are seriously put to the test. But for Ailes, it's far easier to applaud lethal injection for a "hate-filled" bigot who cast himself as a warrior "opposing a tyrannical federal government" than it is to maintain a political/moral stand. Who says liberals aren't flexible?

And note that Ailes suggests that McVeigh (and his cohort Terry Nichols) fantasized that there was a "tyrannical federal government" to fight. Clearly, the guy was crazy, 'cause we know there's no such thing, right? That McVeigh openly and consistently said that his actions were in retaliation for Waco apparently meant nothing. That he chose the second anniversary of the federal assault to carry out his murderous deed also counts for little. He was a "hate-filled" bigot. A blood-soaked cracker. Nothing more need be said. Kill the motherfucker and Move On.

Now, I don't endorse what McVeigh did. Not by any stretch. He and his co-conspirators essentially handed the state another excuse to curtail civil liberties and tighten the societal screws, which is what Bill Clinton did by signing the Anti-Terrorism Act on -- trumpets please! -- this day in 1996. (Another anniversary to mourn.) Clinton set loose the police state, allowed expanded wiretapping and surveillance of American citizens who might hold the "wrong" ideas. Given Clinton's enthusiasm in this regard, there's little doubt that had he been prez on 9/11, he would've pushed the Patriot Act with the same gusto as did Bush -- only Clinton would be cheered on by liberals. No nazi he.

To get a fuller picture of what Waco, Oklahoma City and McVeigh all mean, read Gore Vidal's Vanity Fair piece from Sept. 2001. Vidal was much maligned when this appeared, but don't let that sway you. Take it in and decide for yourself.

And since many liberals seem incapable of examining the politics and class issues that may have contributed to McVeigh's bloody decision, we must move further left to find what answers exist.

When it comes to Waco, one must shift to the libertarian end to get beyond the Official Account. And Justin Raimondo forges some interesting parallels between Waco and Iraq.

Lib bloggers? Obsessed with New Pope and . . . ANN COULTER!