LeoCasey at aol.com:
> A "case" of what? Third stage syphilis?
>
> I know it should not be, it remains amazing to me how certain romantics of
> the 'smash the state' variety, a la Cockburn, manage to quickly gloss the
> loss of innocent life on a massive scale, so long as it is down in the name
> of opposing the American state.
Far from glossing over the loss of innocent life, I thought their point was that McVeigh's rationale was just like the rationale of people like Bush I and II and Clinton for slaughtering people overseas (and even at home) when it was in the interests of the American state. McVeigh seems to be quite aware of this; it's part of his performance.
Here's something I pulled off one respectable web site or another (NYTimes?) a few years ago:
On "60 Minutes" a few years ago, Leslie Stahl asked
then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright if U.S. policies
were worth killing a half-million Iraqi children.
Albright answered, "Yes, it is worth it."
If McVeigh is a nut case, or a very bad person, then why aren't Albright and her great leader and people like them also nut cases or very bad persons? Because they wield State power? Then what does that say about the State?