168 people with the writer of thesernletters. . . . 1 do know one thing: Inrnthe written word, at least, he iiasrnnot a whis]3er ot conseienee.rnMeX’eigh elainied to Miehcl andrnHerheek that he did not know thern-lurrah Building had a daeare eenter,rnthat it w as not isihlc from the .street, thatrnhe would hae pieked another target hadrnhe known it was there, and that he triedrnto aoid harming eixilians. 1 hat uia orrnnvdv not he true, hut it realK does notrnmatter er mueh. \buld the homhingrnha e heen moralh defensihie if no ehildrenrnhad heen killed? Did MeV’eighrnworn that taxpaers, eterans, erinie ietinis,rnplaintiffs and defendants, and othersrnw ith legitimate elainis against the federalrngoxernnient might also he in thernhuilding that morning? The fact is thatrnMe’eigh did not gie a danui ahoutrnthem, or the children, or whether therernwere tedcral law-enforcement agents inrnthe huilding, or whether the iederal hurcaneratsrnhe dcliheratelx murdered hadrnpcrsonalK” done au thing wrong. TimothrnMc eigh was indifferent to his iehmsrnheeanse he had eonineed himselfrnthat he was a soldier enlisted in his ownrnpriate war against what he called thern”tedcral juggernaut,’ and he felt no morernremorse tor slaughtering the enemies hernselected tiian Jimnn Doolittle’s fliers feltrnwhen the firehomhed Japanese ciiliansrnin l()ko, or later in Hiroshima, Nagasaki,rnor Dresden; or (as Me’eigh himselfrnwrote in a letter last Ma” to fox Newsrncorrespondent Rita C’o.sln ) Aiucrieau |3ilotsrnwhen thexl^omhed cixilian targets inrnIracj and Scd^ia.rn”Bonihing the Mnrrah Federal Building,”rnMe eigh wrote to Miss (“osh,rnwas moralK and strategicalK e(.|in-rnalentto the U.S. hitting a gocrnmentrnhuilding in Serbia, h’ac| orrnother nations. leased on obseuationsrnof the policies of m own go’-rncrnnicnt, I iewed this achon as anrnacceptable option, from this perspeetirne, what occurred in OklahomarnC^ih was no different tiianrn,s’;c| what Americans rain on thernheads of others all the time and,rnsubsec|ucntl’, u\ mindset was andrnis one of clinical detachment.rn.Much the same point is made m Americanrn’I’errorist: “The .merican iuilitar,”rnMichel and Ikabeck write,rnhad been using the same philosoplnrnfor ears, he would argue.rnAmerican bomljing raids were designedrnto take lies, not just destrornbuildings. 1 he atom bombs Hiatrnbrought a blooth end to WorldrnWar 11 —tile bombs in whose imagernhe saw his ow n —w ere designedrnto kill not just liundreds butrnthousands of people. I Ic claimedrnto take no pleasure from killing.rnBut in his mind, McX’cigh had norntrouble jushf’ing what he wasrnabout to do.rnIndeed, McVeighs argmnent is notrnnotiecabh different from that inoked byrnne()conseratie cohminist Bruec Feinrnin a column during the (lulfWar. Whenrnll.S. bombs struck (ap|3arentl accidentalK)rnan h”ai|i bomb shelter coittainingrnciiliaus. President Bush expressed regretsrnfor the deaths that ensued. Fein, inrna column published in the WashingtonrnI’iwes on k’ebruar- 20, 1991, claimedrnthat “the ast majorit’ of Iraq’s populationrnhas aetiel-assisted Saddam’s internatioualrnlawlessness” and that the “])eoplernof Iraq” (not just its goernment orrnleaders) “are res|)onsible for the aggressionrnand war crimes of their president.”rnWlw, therefore, should Mr. Bushrninstruct the U.S. militar serupulousKrnto a()id ciilian targets inrnI r a q ^ . ? During World War IIrnthe Allied powers massieKrnbombed Berlin, Dresden, andrn’l’okx) for reasons of militar andrneiilian morale. WinstonrnCjhurchill instructed the Roal Airrnk’orce to “make the rubble dance”rnin Ck-nuan cities. Wh is Mr.rnlinsli treating haqi ei ilians morernsolieitorrsK” than die enem eiiliansofWorldrnWarll?rnIf the U.S. military can blame the “innocent”rnci”ilians of an enemy state for thernpolicies of that state and dclibcratehrnwage lethal action against them, thenrnwin” shoidd I imotin McX’eigh not jiistikrnhis own war against “innoeeuf federalrnbureaucnits and their children? ForgetrnThe Turner Diaries. I’he real question is:rnDid ‘I’imotinMcVeigh read Bruce Fein?rnMcVeigh reflects exactly the samernmoralit thai Fein expresses, a moralih’rnthat knows no disttnetion between ciilianrnand militar hutlumixs them togetherrnas “enemies” and regards them all as fairrngame to be blown to bits. I’o some cxtenfrnMcVeigh was mocking that moralityrnin his bombing of the Mmrah Building,rnreducing it to the absurdih tliat it is;rnbut parth’, he was also embracing it (as hernexplicitl}- does in his comments tornMichel and Herheek and in his letter tornMiss C”osb), and exploiting it as a justificationrnof his action. Insofar as he embracedrnit, McVeigh felt and eould feel nornguilt for the bondMug; insofar as hernmocked it, he could claim that the federalrngovernment eoidd not fairly blamernhim for doing what it does rouhneh’, thatrnhe was mereK pa ing it back in the samerncoin —”dirt for dirh,” as he ]3ut it to thernauthors.rnWhat Timoth}’ McVeigh did was indeedrnan act of mass murder that deservedrndeath, if not a good deal more. But thernpoint he tried to make in his act of murderrnremains a serious one—that, in modernrnwarfare as practiced routinely andrnliappiK- bv the I’nited States and otherrnmodern democracies, and inereasingh’rneen in domestic law enforcement lethalrnciilian casualhes are acceptable (if civiliansrnare not often deliberatcK” selectedrntargets). McVeigh’s insfstence that Americansrnsee that point and the horror it embodiesrnwas made with a saagcr’ he hadrnno right to conrmit; but it ma have been,rnas he claimed it was, the onlx way thernpoint eordd be eommunieated at all to arngo ernment that has become too moralh’rnirresponsible ecn to offer Jimmv Doolittle’srntoken option of backing out now andrna population too morallv obtuse to acceptrnthe choice, een if it were offered. It isrnliardh surprising that so few journalistsrnwere able to rmderstand wh’ ‘FimothrnMcX’eigh felt no remorse for the massrnbloodshed he caused; hardh anvone elsernin the United States toda is able to understandrnit either, or the moral point thatrnthe Oklahoma Cit’ bombing tried tornconvex’. <-‘rn— LIBERAL ARTSrnROLL OVER,rnNLRTIN LUTHERrn”There are \a’s ot birth control. I’mrna Protestant, and Protestants don’trnlia’e aii problem w ith famih planningrn|,sic|, and the Chinese governmentrnis sa ing one child a tamih,rnwliicli .seems cxeessixe, pcdiaps, butrnthafs the rule and so far it’s workingrnfor them.”rn— l^at Robertson, from anrnApril J’S, 200!, intcmewourn’Phe f’.dge witli Paula Zalinrn.^LiGUST 2001/2.’.rnrnrn