Commenting on my post about a possible Iraqi connection to OKC, fellow blogger John Hudnall makes an additional point that’s worth repeating.

After 911, Bill Clinton was whining to his toadies and sycophants about how cruel and unfair history was–he never had an opportunity to be a great president, because he didn’t get to preside over a war. That sum’bitch Bush just had all the luck.

But as I pointed out, there was a lot of evidence of international connections to the OKC bombing, which was the biggest terrorist attack on US soil up until that time (since the first WTC attempt in 1993 was unsuccessful). But the Administration actively avoided following the evidence trail.

I already pointed out one reason–they wanted to demonize their political enemies, and not dilute any of the blame. But the other reason is perhaps that, had they actually found hard evidence of Iraqi involvement, they would have had to do something about it, and the public would have likely been unimpressed with lobbing a few cruise missiles at aspirin factories. Particularly considering Mr. Clinton’s own history, and his cabinet picks, this was not an Administration with either the temperament or talent to fight a real war.

So Mr. Clinton potentially had his opportunity for a war against terrorism in Oklahoma City. He chose instead, as Mr. Hudnall says, to use it for crass domestic partisan advantage. Had he instead sought to find the full truth, and properly responded to it, what happened on September 11 might have been avoided.

And thus the legacy continues to build.

Most political observers agree that the Oklahoma City bombing resurrected Bill Clinton’s political career, or at least initiated the process. The Democrats had just lost the Congress in the 1994 elections, due to the health-care debacle, gun control, and a number of other overreaches. There were stories in Time and Newsweek about the “incredible shrinking President” and whether or not he was “relevant.”

OKC changed all that almost overnight. It not only allowed the Big He to go out on one of his “feel your pain” trips, but he and his minions used it to blast militias, talk radio, and evil Right-Wing Republicans, blaming them and their “hate speech” for the bombing.

All of this slander was contingent, of course, on the fact that the job was done, and done solely, by a member of such a “right-wing group.” So Tim McVeigh was the perfect fall guy, from the Administration’s point of view. Once they had the goods on him and Nichols, they basically quit looking for anyone else. Remember “John Doe #2”? Few others do, either, because all evidence that could implicate anyone but McVeigh and Nichols was excluded from their trial, and it became quickly forgotten.

While it could be argued that such evidence was irrelevant to the case against them, and thus properly excluded, it was also convenient to those who wanted to demonize the “right,” since it allowed the finger of blame to be pointed only at the evil right wingers. That full justice was never served wasn’t as important as making clear how evil McVeigh and like-thinking people were.

Well, now that we’re digging into terrorism, and terrorist connections, in light of the past few months, some old skeletons may be starting to clatter out of the closet, as described in this article at Insight. In the process of seeking additional justifications to go after Saddam, yet another old Clinton coverup may finally see the light of day.

Note the last, and key, paragraph:

But one thing is clear: Bill Clinton and Janet Reno exulted when they found a domestic conspiracy behind the Oklahoma City bombing, say administration insiders, and immediately ordered the FBI to call off its investigation of any international connection. Details of that connection finally are beginning to emerge.

I’m getting a little tired of having my home town of Flint, Michigan being continually slandered and libeled by the Australian oppressor and others, including Michael Moore. He is not from Flint. That benighted town has lots of problems, some even of its own making, but spawning the likes of Michael Moore is not one of them.

According to one of his many contradictory stories, he himself claims that he was raised in rural Lapeer county, and according to one of his fan websites, he was actually born in Davison (now a suburb just east of the growing city, but at that time a small town outside of it). Of course, I didn’t have to look it up on the Internet. Being there at the time, I knew that.

In 1954, Michael Moore was born in Davison, Michigan, a suburb of Flint, to an Irish Catholic family of laborers.

Well, now we know that being a laborer is not genetic.

At 14, Moore, impressed by the Berrigans, joined a diocesan seminary. But a year later, he was asked to leave.

What a shocker.

Moore cited girls as the main proponent.

And the girls no doubt cited him as the main repellent.

He was forced to return to Davison High School, where he became a star of the school debate team, a student-government organizer and even authored a school play.

Note: Davison High School. Not a Flint high school.

In 1970, Moore received the Eagle Scout award. His Eagle Scout project was a slide show exposing the worst polluters in Flint.

Was he part of the show? Based on first-hand reports of his personal hygiene habits, inquiring minds want to know.

And we have good reason to be suspicious. After all, he is famous for creating exposes of things for which he himself could be a poster child (e.g., “Stupid White Men”).

Though, I suppose he’d be exempt in this particular case, being a resident of Davison.

After high school, Moore worked several jobs, including one at Buick, which he quit on his first day.

How does one “work” a job that one quits on the first day? This is a logical miracle achievable, apparently in some immaculate way, only by someone who is the offspring of “laborers.”

In 1972, spurned [sic] on by Donald Priehs, his former government teacher, Moore decided to run for the school board and won; at 18, Moore became the youngest member to sit on the Flint City Council. Shortly after, Moore lobbied to get Priehs fired.

Isn’t he a gem?

Moore caused so much trouble for the town that a recall drive was attempted. Moore dropped out of the University of Michigan, Flint because he was too busy suing his town in court.

And the University rejoiced.

Shortly thereafter, he headed out to infest San Francisco, and tormented my poor city no more until he came back in the late ’80s to stalk Roger Smith.

And, as someone who was born within the city limits (the year after Mr. Moore) and a resident through my third year of college, I can assure all that Flint is nothing like Manhattan, a fact that I regretted throughout my childhood…

Everyone else has been linking to Lileks’ latest handiwork, so I wasn’t going to bother, but it occurred to me that it would be funny if every time someone googled “Michael Moore,” they would get Lileks’ screed instead.

So…
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore
Michael Moore

Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:

This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.

This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who’s also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.

While I’m not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don’t think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I’ll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I’ve ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I’d like that one back.

There are at least two reasons for this.

First, I’ve found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I’ve never run into them. That’s the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.

But the most important reason is this–while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their government intrusions, and there’s good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.

This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you’re ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.

Who can be against a “living wage”? What’s so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn’t rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?–they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What’s wrong with you? How can you be against social security–do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?

To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don’t think any Democrats did.

[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it–John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]

On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they’ll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they’d actually do about it if you voted for them?

The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they’re very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they’re very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.

Just in case there was any doubt, Harry Browne has completely lost it. As a libertarian, this saddens me.

Dennis Prager is on fire about the Red Cross banning songs with the words “God” or “prayer” from their event in Orange County. His take is that they didn’t really apologize–they just regretted that anyone found their decision offensive. It’s not quite that bad. If you read their press release, they do admit that they made a “mistake in judgment,” but the general tone is as Dennis said. They stand by whatever “principles” resulted in that judgment.

This is political correctness run utterly amok, and it seems to have appropriately ignited a firestorm when carried out by an organization called the American Red Cross.

As Dennis says, by their warped criteria, they can’t say “American” and they can’t say “Cross” because these terms are deemed potentially offensive.

That only leaves “Red.”

Dennis Prager is on fire about the Red Cross banning songs with the words “God” or “prayer” from their event in Orange County. His take is that they didn’t really apologize–they just regretted that anyone found their decision offensive. It’s not quite that bad. If you read their press release, they do admit that they made a “mistake in judgment,” but the general tone is as Dennis said. They stand by whatever “principles” resulted in that judgment.

This is political correctness run utterly amok, and it seems to have appropriately ignited a firestorm when carried out by an organization called the American Red Cross.

As Dennis says, by their warped criteria, they can’t say “American” and they can’t say “Cross” because these terms are deemed potentially offensive.

That only leaves “Red.”

Dennis Prager is on fire about the Red Cross banning songs with the words “God” or “prayer” from their event in Orange County. His take is that they didn’t really apologize–they just regretted that anyone found their decision offensive. It’s not quite that bad. If you read their press release, they do admit that they made a “mistake in judgment,” but the general tone is as Dennis said. They stand by whatever “principles” resulted in that judgment.

This is political correctness run utterly amok, and it seems to have appropriately ignited a firestorm when carried out by an organization called the American Red Cross.

As Dennis says, by their warped criteria, they can’t say “American” and they can’t say “Cross” because these terms are deemed potentially offensive.

That only leaves “Red.”

The budget crisis in Sacramento may affect California’s bond ratings with S&P. This bombshell will hit this summer, when people are starting to pay attention to the race.

While Davis is indeed a vicious campaigner, I don’t think that anything that he can do at this point can reverse his negatives in peoples’ minds. The Republicans could probably run Goofy against him and win in November. Simon is still ahead in the latest Field Poll (though it’s within the margin of error).

But when an incumbent can only get 40% support for reelection right after the primary, he’s in deep, deep kimchi.