Why didn't Limbaugh remember the victims of Oklahoma City?
April 23, 2010 10:47 am ET by Eric Boehlert
This has been bugging me since Monday.
On his show that day, which was the 15th anniversary of Timothy McVeigh's act of right-wing, anti-government terrorism that killed 168 innocents in Oklahoma City, Rush Limbaugh spent a lot of time talking about the events surrounding the tragic attack. But I found it downright chilling how Limbaugh expressed so little sympathy (none?) for the victims of the bombing; how Limbaugh seemed completely disinterested in the havoc McVeigh unleashed on that heartland city.
Instead on Monday, Rush wanted to talk about Waco.
Rush wanted to eulogize the followers of fanatic David Koresh who killed themselves rather than to surrender to federal officials. Those were the victims Rush wanted to remember. But not the ones in Oklahoma City. And certainly not the four ATF agents killed by Branch Davidians during the initial, failed attempt to serve a warrant on the cult's compound back in 1993. (Sixteen other agents were injured that day, in what became the longest shoot-out in U.S. law enforcement history.) Limbaugh made no mention of the sacrifice those people made at the hands of the gun-toting Davidians.
Obviously, Waco and Oklahoma City overlap, which is why they both came up on Monday's show. The final, tragic assault on Waco occurred on April 19, 1993, and it enraged members of the militia/patriot movement, who saw the events as proof of a tyrannical government being run by a New World Order president. Waco was what drove McVeigh's twisted act of revenge. Waco was why McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in an attempt to kill as many government workers as possible.
And so 15 years after McVeigh's act of terror, Limbaugh on Monday went on and on about Waco and the how Bill Clinton and Janet Reno were to blame for the "military invasion" into a "religious compound." (Y'know, the kind of "religious compound" that stockpiles more than one million rounds of ammunition, like the Davidians did.)
On Monday, the ATF-killing Davidians were the victims Limbaugh wanted to remember. ("Sixty-seven people died in the fire; we remember watching it.") But the Oklahoma City victims who perished at the hands of a right-wing terrorist? Limbaugh had little interest in them. For Limbaugh, the Oklahoma City victims remain a political inconvenience.
<sarcasm off>
-- I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation. -- Limbaugh
Here's the chance for Boehlert and/or mmfa to identify their efforts on behalf of the OKC bombing victims...besides spilling barrels of ink for their own political "convenience".
MMFA's assertion stands: Limbaugh expressed little if any sympathy towards the victims on the anniversary day.
"In the aftermath of the bombing, I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation."
So as to full disclosure and accuracy of Limbaugh's claim, it should be noted that at the time of Rush's radio outreach he had no official association with the 2-month-old organization. And he may have spurred millions in donations to the foundation, his efforts resulted in $260,000 in benefits to the children of the OKC bombing victims, not millions.
Boehlert's point stands. Limbaugh said nothing about the victims on the anniversary of the bombing. His patting himself on the back now does not change that fact.
And BTW - Rush's association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation? His name is listed on their Board of Directors page on their web site. It's probably an honorary position in which he does nothing.
Secondly, our response to the OKC bombing is also irrelevant.
Boehlert is saying that during his radio broadcast, Limbaugh never covered that topic. And he didn't.
Wesley the weasel can't defend Limbaugh from that very accurate charge, and so he doesn't even try - he makes a troll post, the very first one on the thread, to distract people from the actual topic.
And then, instead of REPLYING to another person's post, he starts a whole new string a few posts down to continue that derailment effort!
Please don't feed troll posts!
Thanks for the belly laugh and exposing those that believe all it takes is talk to demonstrate concern over an issue...as opposed to action.
Reminds me of the fella that responded to his buddy's question "does your wife enjoy oral sex?"..."Of course she does...all she wants to do is talk about it".
If you're going to defend Limbaugh's defense of himself you'll need to find something better.
Still waiting to hear how cap and trade has anything to do with Oklahoma City. Any thoughts?
Of course, there's a fatal flaw in the argument Rush presented and Wes supports, and it can be found in the caption of the photograph the Wall Street Journal offered alongside Limbaugh's all too jumbled attempt at writing. Clinton's words (which Limbaugh did not dare to quote) came as he was receiving an award from the Oklahoma City National Memorial Foundation. And just what was one of the things that factored into his receiving that reward? The work he does and that is done by the Clinton Foundation.
More than just talk. Actual action.
Now, as much as I dislike Mr. Limbaugh, I'll applaud him for the work he's done for the charities he's supported. I think it's a fine and responsible thing to do. But if he's under the assumption that providing x number of dollars to any given cause, however noble, somehow makes him exempt from criticisms, well, that's just all too ridiculous load of bull pucky. Is Rush going to stop spewing rants at Clinton once his foundation reaches a certain dollar amount raised or a total number of people and causes helped? If so, would he be willing to offer some specifics (for a change) that would put an end to these kind of jumbled tirades once and for all?
Tell me Wes, is the above information wrong?
Did, or did not, Rush spend at least part of the day blaming Clinton for the Waco tragedy, and by association, blaming him for the OK bombing?
Please explain how the logic for that works.
You have my sympathy on your wife and your lack of oral sex.
Striking contrast, is it not?
When Muslims murder innocent Americans, they're simply evil, but if a racist White Boy from our own heartland murders innocent Americans, he was "provoked by the actions of Bill Clinton".