Thanks a million for the plug, Matt! I just blogged at LRC a little more about the parallels between the scapegoating of the right after OKC and the scapegoating of the left after 9/11. And I agree about the parallels you mention about the demonization of the enemy at Waco and Iraq. Koresh was said to have dangerous weapons, to be abusing his people, to be threatening his neighbors—just like with Saddam. The press was incredibly manipulated in both Waco and Iraq. The justifications for the federal attack were ever changing. In Waco, the feds first accused the Davidians of housing a meth lab. Then it was illegal guns. Then it was abuse of children. In Iraq, the feds first accused Saddam of a link to al Qaeda. Then it was WMD. Then the war was defended on grounds of liberating and democratizing the country. In both cases, they wanted to validate the attack and the pretext was secondary. The violence of Oklahoma retroactively justified Waco in some people’s minds; the violence of 9/11 retroactively justified the first Gulf War in the minds of others. In the nineties, the threat was people like McVeigh, Koresh, all “separatists” and the right-wing talk radio hosts that gave them aid and comfort. Nowadays, it is people like Osama, Saddam, all “Islamists” and left-wing protestors that give them aid and comfort.
If Iraq had happened under a Democratic president, many who went along with it would have protested, and some who protested would have went along with it. If Waco had happened unded a Republican president, many who defended the atrocity would have been appalled, and some who were outraged would have defended it.
For those interested, I still think Carol Moore probably has the best book on Waco. You can read it online.