The Dangerous Mr. Paul? Part IV
An Unfair Comparison
By: Chasse Rehwinkel
If you were to travel to the northern corner of Paul’s congressional district—Texas’s 14th district by the way—just above Fort Bend and then hop over the district line going toward the Houston area you would find yourself in Texas’s 9th district.
Texas’s 9th historically has been a Democratic stronghold and since redistricting in 1967 only once has someone who was not a Democrat represented this suburban Houston district.
That one “slip-up” however is particularly interesting.
In 1994 that Republican wizard himself, Newt Gingrich was creating his conservative dominated congress and, in an incredible upset, Republican challenger Steve Stockman unseated 42-year incumbent Jack Brooks for the right to represent Texas’s 9th.
Stockman’s congressional record shows all the familiar Republican tendencies, sponsorship of legislation against gay marriage, against citizenship for native-born children of non-legal residents and against background checks, waiting periods, and registration requirements for firearms.
However Stockman did stand out from most of his fellow Republican congressman on one issue in particular…yeah you guessed it, modern militia movements.
As a congressional freshman Stockman made some rather loud remarks about these movements, including sending a letter on March 22, 1995 to then Attorney General Janet Reno complaining that he had learned of an impending government crackdown on such groups.
In Stockman’s official words: “A paramilitary style attack against Americans who pose no risk to others, even if violations of criminal law might be imputed to them, would run the risk of an irreparable breach between the Federal government and the public, especially if it turned out to be an ill considered, poorly planned, but bloody fiasco like Waco.”
You might say that this was a harmless, if not ill conceived, position to take by the young congressman. The events of April 19, 1995, however, may change your opinion.
At 9 a.m. on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh parked a Ryder rental truck full of explosives in a drop-off zone on the north side of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a regional government building that housed, among other things, offices for the FBI.
At 9:02 a.m. the truck exploded destroying the building and killing 168 people.
The bombing was the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil until the events of September 11, 2001.
McVeigh was eventually captured, tried and sentenced to death for his involvement. His actions seemed unthinkable to many Americans.
“How could something like this happen? Why would someone kill so many people?” were all questions on tips of many citizens’ tongues; questions that they had no answers for.
While awaiting lethal injection, McVeigh wrote letters about his opinions of the bombing and his reasons for his actions. In an eerie bit of déjà vu, one topic we should be familiar with by now was mentioned as a primary reason for why the Oklahoma City Bombing had to occur, the federal government’s actions at Waco.
As McVeigh stated in prison, “If there would not have been a Waco, I would have put down roots somewhere and not been so unsettled with the fact that my government was a threat to me.” He went on to add, “Everything that Waco implies was on the forefront of my thoughts. That sort of guided my path for the next couple of years.”
Sound like Congressman Stockman was a little bit prophetic?
Stockman and McVeigh’s Waco statements, however, are, as it turns out, not the most startling connection they share.
The morning of the bombing a letter was faxed to Congressman Stockman’s office.
The letter was cryptic at best, and forewarned of an impending attack on the American government.
Confused by the communication, the letter was discarded by office staff member Kimberly Pyle. Upon learning about the bombings at around 10:30 a.m. Stockman was told about the letter. Stockman then instructed Pyle to retrieve the discarded fax in order to determine if it was linked to the recent tragedy. At 11:57 a.m. the FBI Office of Public and Congressional Affairs received the letter from Stockman’s office. Stockman himself followed up by calling FBI Special Agent Les Wiser at 12:15 p.m. confirming that they had received the letter and asking if there was anything else the FBI needed from his office.
The letter in question was traced back to the Michigan Militia, an organization McVeigh had been associated with briefly.
The Militia was eventually exonerated of any wrong doing after appearing in front of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism in June 1995 and Stockman was eventually cleared by the FBI Office of Public and Congressional Affairs and even thanked by the office’s inspector in charge of the investigation, John E. Collingwood, for his help.
However, Stockman was never able to shake the label of being somewhat associated with the people involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing case and that, coupled with his unpopular legislation within his district, led to his failure to get reelected in 1996.
Stockman never advocated for an attack against the United States, he never talked to Timothy McVeigh, nor did he reach out to the Michigan Militia Corps in anyway.
Unfairly, you can say, Stockman fell victim to the media’s perception of how things transpired and how close Stockman’s office was to the major players in the bombing.
It’s a stance Stockman has maintained for years, a stance I don’t quite buy.
Not that I think Stockman was involved in anyway with the bombing or that he wasn’t shocked and saddened by what McVeigh did. However, I do question his complete absolution from the crime.
If words truly are mightier than violence then some blame rests with those who spurred on these groups, perhaps accidentally, with their rhetoric.
This is where I make my unfair comparison. If Paul is in fact calling for a revolution then why is it so wrong to draw the link between his words and people’s actions?
Ultimately, believe Paul probably should not have been mentioned in the report but, I also think, with the Stockman example in mind, that MIAC was also probably still justified in doing so.
Confused? Let me explain.
Paul may not be openly advocating for violence against government officials, but it is easy to see where his platform may convince a group to act so anyway.
The dilemma for police then is to recognize the face of civil disobedience when ideology meets action. Are they looking at Martin Luther King or Timothy McVeigh?
It ends up being an impossible question to answer.
So I guess treat this as a warning. Obama’s tree maybe the largest in the forest right now, but there are plenty of confusing, attractive and possibly dangerous flowers that still grow below the canopy.
The greatness in this country lies in its freedom of speech; note, however, the importance of educating yourself about what people are advocating for and understand the dire consequences for extreme actions when some ideas are taken too far.
The dangerous Mr. Paul? Perhaps not, but it’s a flower that is definitely worth keeping an eye on.
No comments yet.
