It's a few days old, but worth a little more attention. Yes, Rachel Maddow
has apologized, sort of, for claiming that former Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX), had "advance notice" of the Oklahoma City bombing. That rumor, perhaps nurtured by a difference in time zones between the fax's place of origin (Augusta, MI) and Oklahoma City, was
put to rest within days of the bombing. But, somehow, it just slipped out of Maddow's mouth this past Wednesday.
There are a few serious problems with
Ms. Maddow's hyperventilated non-apology, not the least of which is that she used it to drag fantasmagorical political fear-mongering to what may be a new low. And her attempt to characterize the accusation as an "editing error" doesn't fly. In an "editing error," one might leave out a word or two or read one word in place of another word, or even add a word that doesn't belong at all. Here's the quote:
Those two [Reps. Helen Chenoweth and Steve Stockman] were so close to the militia movement in this country that Mr. Stockman actually
received advance notice that the Oklahoma City bombing was going to happen.
That's an editing error? Are we to believe that she actually meant to say something more like this?
Those two were so close to the militia movement in this country that Mr. Stockman actually
received notice
almost an hour after the Oklahoma City bombing
that it had already happen
ed.
That's one hell of an editing error..(s). And it doesn't even make any sense. But neither did her remarks back in March, when she at least got the sequence of events right. In that clip, she said:
Back
in 1995, on the morning of the Oklahoma City bombing, just after the
explosion, a member of Congress named Steve Stockman, Republican of
Texas, was sent a fax touting the bombing. He was sent that fax by
somebody in the militia movement. Mr.
Stockman later turned that fax over to the FBI. He was never implicated
in any way in the bombing itself. But there is a reason that the
militia movement trusted a member of Congress enough to go to him with
that.
"Trusted him enough to go to him with" ... what? A cryptic reference, containing no new information, to an event that had already taken place? I'm missing the trust factor here. And if there was any trust, it was undeserved, because as soon as Stockman made the connection between the fax and the bombing, he sent the fax to the FBI. Yes,
"later" that same morning, actually (according to the FBI, at 11:57 am).
So what on earth is Maddow's point? Ok, Steve Stockman is apparently a piece of work himself, and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that he was cozy with the militia movement (though probably not nearly as cozy as Rachel Maddow would have us believe). But you have to wonder why she keeps bringing up a one term Congressman who was voted out of office in 1996 and has failed to win any substantial support from the GOP, let alone the general electorate, ever since.
Could her point be to plant a connection in the minds of her viewers between the election of Republican politicians to Congress and a horrific act of domestic terrorism? Why, yes, it could.
Here are a few clues, quoting, again, from her non-apology.
Mr.
Stockman was a very conservative Republican politician elected in 1994.
That was the last time we had our first midterm elections after a new
Democratic president was inaugurated.
If
the country talked a lot more about the Steve Stockmans of the world
and anti-government extremism and what the experience of having
anti-government extremists in Congress was like for this country the
last time we tried it, I think that would be good for us as a country.
Particularly before this round of elections.
What "experience of having anti-government extremists in Congress" is she talking about? Is she trying to say that the election of conservative Republicans in 1994 somehow gave free rein to the militia movement? That never happened, at least in this universe. Or that it caused the Oklahoma City bombing? Is she that nuts?
Newsflash: Conservative bloggers aren't "extreeeeeemely angry" with you, Rachel. They're sort of mocking you. They're sort of appalled by your seeming indifference to basic journalistic standards and your inability to acknowledge even your most glaring mistakes without flying into a defensive, paranoid rage. Conservative bloggers try to save their real anger for people of actual consequence.
See also, Armin Rosen at Reason: And the Award for Most Sanctimonious Non-Apology of the Week Goes To...
