At 08:41 PM 6/2/97 -0400, Hallam-Baker wrote:
Appologists for McVeigh should consider that his actions did not advance the militia cause an iota, it destroyed it and along with it much of the right wing fringe.
"Follow the money" is usually sound advice. More general, ask "who benefits". Clearly, the constitutional militias and civil libertarians are the losers of the Oklahoma bombing. The sole benefactors are the statists and numerous government agencies.
That does not mean that they were the instigators. The militia potentially stood to gain if the government overreacted and introduced martial law type curbs. The objective of terrorism is to provoke a reaction that can be used as "proof" of the dictatorial nature of the opponent. This is why the IRA spends its time burning down factories where Catholics work, it can then blame the state of the Northern Ireland economy on "the British". The damage done to Newt, Limbaugh and co was because of their reaction to the bomb. Limbaugh failed to give the categorical repudiation the act required. Liddy appeared to be supportive with his "shoot for the head" statement. It was very easy to pin part of the blame for Oaklahoma on the people who had made a living out of stirring up hatred and paranoia. Newt Gingrich got tarred by association with Liddy and Limbaugh. When the bombing occured he did precisely what he accuses Clinton of, he equivocated waiting until the public mood was apparent to condem the radio extreemists. It was too late for Newt to avoid blame since he had also made much of his career out of the type of anti-government rant that led McVeigh to mass murder. There is a principle in propaganda that people unwittingly accuse others of their own failings. Hence Newt who began his speakership by seaking a $2 million bribe from Rupert Murdoch believes Clinton must also be on the take. The same principle is at work on the net. McVeigh is found guilty of murder on the basis of a collosal mountain of evidence. The reaction from the pro-millitia, pro-McVeigh people is that McVeigh must have been framed and everyone who believes otherwise is guilty of "knee jerk" reactions. If that isn't a knee jerk reaction I don't know what is. There is absolutely nothing that the anti-government ranters contribute to the pro-cryptography movement. They are a liability at best. Stuart Baker is even now probably peddling his Clipper chip initiative in Europe holding up one of Jim Bell's rants as "proof" of his case. Phill