I'm sure Hannity and Fox know exactly

[Still Sensible]

what they are doing. After all, it was painful for them (the RW and Fox and friends) in the 90s to know that the tragedy at Waco--which was indeed a tragedy and a black spot on Bubba and Janet Reno--was the major motivation for McVeigh (although I suggest he would have found another motive if Waco would not have happened). Right and wrong has little to do with how they cover any event--it's all about being able to defile democrats and liberals. And when a couple early teabaggers went so far as to respond with a tragedy even more heinous, they had to tread lightly on Waco and Koresh lest they appear to be supporting McVeigh.

For a variety of reasons, the Oklahoma City tragedy slowed down the right's march. They had just won control of the Congress and it appeared they might take back the White House in '96. But Oklahoma City did two things--it made any use of the Waco tragedy very hard and it made Bill Clinton a more sympathetic figure to independents as a result of the way he and his administration responded to the Murrah bombing. Sure the right was still disruptive, they still eventually impeached Clinton, but were unable to unseat him or beat him with Bob Dole. One contributing factor was that they could not overtly use the Waco mess anymore because to do so would look as if they were sympathetic to McVeigh's actions.

Make no mistake, today Hannity and Fox are just fine when the kool-aid drinking, militia-thinking dumbshits don't get Hannity's sarcasm and interpret it in an entirely different way.

After all, an outbreak of domestic terror would only serve to help them with two of their primary goals: To re-energize the campaign of fear that keeps the masses in line, and; to portray democrats and liberals in general--and President Obama in particular--as wimps, ill-equipped to "protect the homeland and keep amurika safe."

[louis-t]

1. One more effect of OKC bombing.

Majority of militia types slinked back into their holes for a few years.