Using the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing to smear Bill Clinton and coddle the government-hating militia movement, Rush Limbaugh this week did his best to justify Timothy McVeigh's deadly act of right-wing vengeance by shifting the blame onto the former president of the United States.
Even by Limbaugh's baseless standards, the insurrectionist attack was an extraordinary one -- "President Clinton's ties to the domestic terrorism of Oklahoma City are tangible." Yet the contemptible claim didn't generate much news interest. In fact, a search of the Nexis archives for Tuesday failed to turn up a single outlet that highlighted Limbaugh's attack on Clinton as news.
The sad truth is, collectively, the corporate media have let right-wing talkers cross so many lines of common decency and accountability over the past year that it seems most pundits don't think Limbaugh and company should be held to any kind of civilized standard. Nothing he says at this point seems to trigger any sort of visceral response.
But why isn't Limbaugh held accountable for his words and actions? Why wasn't it considered big news that the de facto leader of the Republican Party went to a place previously considered unconscionable and unpardonable by the press corps?
If the New York Times, for instance, is going to prop up Limbaugh as an all-powerful and deeply important figure in American politics the way the newspaper did with a worshipful Sunday magazine cover story, shouldn't it then dutifully chronicle Limbaugh's radical and outrageous rhetoric, as well?
Note that on Tuesday, the Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, didn't bat an eye while reviewing Limbaugh's jaw-dropping claim that the former Democratic president had ties to domestic terrorism and that he was to blame for the 168 people killed in the Oklahoma City blast. Typing up the controversy, Kurtz didn't even comment on the substance of Limbaugh's unhinged hate rhetoric. For the Post, it was just more Rush-being-Rush.
Question: Would Kurtz have been so docile and disinterested if an MSNBC host had claimed that President Bush had ties to foreign terrorism and was personally to blame for the carnage on 9-11?
For the most part, right-talkers have been issued a free pass, and they know it. Aware of the glaring double standard, they use it to dump more hate rhetoric into the public discourse. And they do it without fear of a media backlash.
Remember last summer when Limbaugh compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler? ("Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate.") And remember how Limbaugh refused to apologize, and then kept doing it again and again? Recall also the media's response to Limbaugh's crazy Nazi rhetoric: Ho-hum. Nothing to see here, people.
But we know Limbaugh crossed a bright line with his Nazi rhetoric because, back in 2004, a mainstream media maelstrom erupted when it was discovered that two videos submitted to a MoveOn.org anti-Bush ad contest had included Hitler imagery in their 30-second attacks on then-President Bush. (The ads represented just two of the 1,500 clips submitted.) MoveOn never endorsed the efforts or promoted them; the clips simply appeared on MoveOn's crowded contest website. But their mere existence sparked a week-long media controversy, despite the fact that the liberal netroots group quickly pulled the ads, apologized for their inclusion, and denounced the use of Nazi imagery.
Talkers like CNN's Wolf Blitzer were not pleased. After playing one of the offending Hitler clips as news, Blitzer bemoaned the "ugly, ugly ad."
Keep in mind, that was for an obscure Web ad that nobody ever would have seen if not highlighted in the press. But for Limbaugh, who reaches more than 10 million listeners a day? What happened this week on CNN when Limbaugh implied that Clinton had ties to terrorism and was responsible for the death of 168 Americans?
Crickets.
Media Matters has been documenting for more than a year now how the conservative press has embraced and celebrated the anti-government message of the 1990s militia movement and its incendiary campaign calling for resistance against an illegitimate, America-hating president and his "lawless regime" that's intent on overthrowing the country. We've detailed how the GOP Noise Machine has feasted, opportunistically, on the chance to foment hate while creating a chaotic atmosphere of supposed instability.
Fully aware there's virtually no political price to be paid for hyping that kind of revolutionary talk (i.e. the press doesn't say boo about it), Limbaugh decided to retroactively exonerate, or at least justify, McVeigh's horrific terrorist act by pointing the finger at the former president of the United States and blaming him for causing the ghoulish blast.
How could that be? Limbaugh claimed Clinton's policies -- his "deeds" -- pushed the right-wing terrorist too far. McVeigh, among others, became "angered" by Waco, in Limbaugh's words.
That's right, "angered" over Waco, McVeigh drove his rented Ryder truck to Oklahoma City, parked it outside of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, and blew it up, shearing off the entire north side off the building, killing government workers as well as their toddlers inside in daycare. ("I reached the decision to go on the offensive -- to put a check on government abuse of power," McVeigh later wrote.)
But now, 15 years later, it's a former president of the United States and his personal "deeds" that are to blame for that terrorist attack. It's Bill Clinton -- not Timothy McVeigh -- who boasts "ties" to "domestic terrorism."
Question: Doesn't anybody in the Beltway press corps think this is newsworthy and demands comment?
Crossposted at Media Matters' blog, County Fair.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EricBoehlert
David Sirota: Bill Clinton's Little-Noticed Contrition
Better Clinton acknowledge the failure of misguided trade and deregulatory initiatives, rather than pretend they succeeded. Better he apologize for the betrayals, rather than feign indifference. Why? Because the penitence may now spur change.
Are you kidding me?!?! The Left's media hawks cling to Limbaugh's every word and write about it or broadcast it, slamming it constantly, day in and day out... Limbaugh mocks them for putting him on the front page every day ... because they do! I guess, they're afraid he's getting, um, too much attention.
It's like serial killers starting with torturing animals as younger children or teens and slowly working their way up. Rush is climbing that same kind of hill.
Sadly ignoring dangerous people like him won't make them go away. We have to keep a really strong eye on him.
Limbaugh is a pathetic piece of excriment that has no shame in what comes out of his mouth.
The Bush family did have ties to foreign terrorists, as a matter of fact, they made lots of money with the bin Ladin family, not to mention selling Saddam the weapons he used on the Kurds. The only difference was that the Bush's used their profits in foreign investment firms to pay for their milk-toast, least incompetent progeny"s 8 years in the Oval Office, while the bin Ladin profits went towards funding the worst terrorist attack in modern history. As far as the long term consequences go, I see little difference in their impact on American lives.
The right wing militias and the airwaves polluted with hate and disinformation created the impetus for the acceptance of Koresh as an anti-government leader in Texas and the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City. No one has been more anti-government than this writer. What the right wing is doing today is not legitimate protest it is incitement to homegrown terrorism.
Send an email to an editor, TV or news outlet that gave coverage without condemning it. Take a damn moment - less time than it took for him to put it out there. We can be louder, incredibly louder and far more effective - we stopped a war and took a Republican president out of office by putting our bodies on the line in protest. We did not have guns or misinform anyone. We did have people called "journalists" back then though. We want Limbaugh "OUT NOW." He is a menace to society.
McVeigh and his ilk believe(d) that there is a base of the population behind them, cheering them on for good reason. To be accurate though, when the McVeigh tapes were broadcast he said his hatred of government began when George H.W. Bush's administration placed him in the Gulf War.
Ironically, the only cure is education, a long term propostion and something we long ago stopped funding in any meaningful way. So we have to be content with my old history professor's admonition: "With fools even the gods argue in vain."
As for FBI they only get active when something really bad happens. They don't seem to bother with hate speech that could lead to bad outcomes.
Frankly I don't see what your beef is. The decision to invade Waco was made within the Clinton administration itself. Obviously wrong, but McViegh has been put to death...
...perhaps that what you want done to Rush Limbaugh?
It certainly would not suprise me nor would it if some form of lawsuit emanating from our current administration against Rush was imminent.
What I do find extremely suprising, is the complete embrace you have for government. I guess I am from a different era. In my day the progressives had the mantra "Question Authority". Apparently today, the real progressives are the tea baggers.
Just isn't so. And you know it.