With Tim McVeigh they [the media] were happy to generalize guilt, all the way from the NRA to Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Here, the "climate of opinion" in subcultures producing terrorists seems to get less attention, or to be processed in more of a "why do they hate us?" fashion. I wonder why?I'm sorry, but is just batshit crazy. A quick look around the media stories about the shootings don't try to hide that the shooter was an Arab Muslim, that the victims were all Jewish and that the shootings were a "crime of hate."
No pro-Muslim, anti-Israel spin. None.
As for claim that "the media" linked McVeigh with Limbaugh and Gingrich, this too appears to be untrue. Googling the three names hits a lot of right wing websites, all which reference the same article by Carl Rowan of the Washington Post, which contained this line:
"Unless Gingrich and Dole and the Republicans say, 'Am I inflaming a bunch of nuts?' you know we're going to have some more events. I am absolutely certain the harsher rhetoric of the Gingriches and the Doles . . . creates a climate of violence in America."The notion that this single line in a single article by a single reporter somehow is representative of the entire media's coverage of Oklahoma City is absurd.
Even worse, Putz again and again promoted the most fringe, loopy conspiracy theories about Timothy McVeigh -- the convenient right wing fantasy that he was working with Iraqi agents.
Convenient, especially for Putz, since McVeigh was a self-described libertarian, gun nut, Turner Diaries-variety Christianist.
Putz enthusiastically linked to these McVeigh-Iraq articles in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
I wonder why?