For some reason, today, I was thinking about Oklahoma City. Specifically I was thinking about the terror attacked on the federal building in that city planned and executed by Timothy McVeigh and his associates. In the post-9/11 world the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t often get included when we talk about terrorism, but that’s exactly what the attack was. McVeigh and the monsters who helped him had an agenda which they thought could be fulfilled, at least in part, by blowing up a government building filled with innocent men, women and children.
After the bombing Americans (with the possible exception of a few fringe lunatics) united in condemning the actions of McVeigh and his associates. There was no excuse valid enough to justify what they did. Which was as it should be.
Now fast forward to today’s world. America was hit nearly four years ago this September by foreign terrorists with an agenda aimed at bringing this country to its knees. In response to that attack America attacked two rogue, terror-sponsoring countries in the middle east, which was the region where these terrorists came from.
In the time directly after the attacks most Americans united in condemning those who had launched them. Since that time, however, things have changed. Those who opposed attacking Afghanistan and Iraq have taken to doing all but excusing (and in some instances actually excusing) the 9/11 attacks, if not outright blaming them on the government of the United States itself. People like Ward Churchill tell us that its our fault we were attacked because we’re fascists. People like Cindy Sheehan tell us that the Americans and Jews are the real terrorists in the middle east. Anyone trying to reason with these people by pointing out that spreading democracy to the oppressed regions of the middle east is a pretty good way to stop terrorism is met with a stinging deluge of moral equivalence. “Blame America First” is the ideal these people cling to and they aren’t letting go.
Yet after McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City did we take to hatching conspiracy theories to “prove” that he was justified in his actions? Did we blame an “evil” American domestic policy for his deeds? Did we point to the country’s economy for making him poor and unemployed? Did we point to the country’s education systems for making him ignorant? Of course not. We blamed Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts. That’s it. Nobody said “Oh, poor Tim had it tough growing up so of course he blew up that federal building.” And if people did say that they were denounced and outed for the morons they were.
So why doesn’t the same thing happen to the anti-war protesters who accuse the President of being murderer? Why no wide-spread denouncement of the anti-war folks who declare solidarity with the terrorists in Iraq? How about some criticism for people like Cindy Sheehan who blame terrorism on the Jews and accuse the President of murdering soldiers instead of the Islamic jihadists who really killed them? How about some criticism for people like Saddam-apologist and Hizbollah ally Michael Moore?
Heck, I’d settle for a little bit of criticism for Howard “They Were Better Off Under Saddam” Dean.
I’m not saying there aren’t well-thought-out and perfectly acceptable reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, but why does so much of the opposition to that war seem to come from fringe lunatics?
Why are we expected to take these people seriously?
By Rob Port of Say Anything.