Is it common knowledge that McVeigh explicitly makes these connections himself? I was out of the country for the bombing and its aftermath so don't know what or how much the press ventured to report on. Like everyone else, I knew of the Waco connection, but only heard about the catalyzing role of his Gulf War experiences in the past week or so. Though apparently there's been some coverage of it (including 60 Minutes again):
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/13/mcveigh/ McVeigh: Gulf War killings led him on path to disillusionment, March 13, 2000.
TERRE HAUTE, Indiana (CNN) -- The man convicted of the worst instance of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States started becoming disillusioned with the U.S. government during his service in the Gulf War, he told CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview aired Sunday.
Timothy McVeigh said he killed enemy soldiers there but grew to question
whether he was doing the right thing. "I thought ... what right did I have to come over to this person's country and kill him? How did he ever transgress against me?" [...]
And from a jail cell essay McVeigh wrote: http://www.kwtv.com/news/bombing/mcveigh-essay.htm
"[...]When considering morality and "mens rea" (criminal intent) in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? Yet another example of this nation's blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in favor of bombing Iraq. In this instance, the people of the nation approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by association" - they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned. What motivates these seemingly contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different than the killing of Americans?
I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a two-pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is? I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction. When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake. Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself. These are weapons of mass destruction - and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of Newsweek magazine. It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act as viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.
When considering the used of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a means to and end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."
Sincerely, Timothy J. McVeigh (ESSAY ENDS)