Another moonbat bites the dust.

I wouldn't waste one second of my time on this did it not so perfectly dovetail into the preceding comments on Senator Byrd. Dwight Armstrong, one of four creeps who bombed a building - killing a physicist and wounding several others - on the campus of the University of Wisconsin finally kicked the bucket this week. The Washington Post's obituary headline simply characterized him as a "Vietnam War protester." The New York Times obituary headline at least characterized him as someone "who bombed a college building in 1970" and opened the piece by characterizing it as "a political protest that, gone violently wrong, endures in the national memory as an act of domestic terrorism." I like the way domestic terrorism is couched in qualifying terms. The Times then devotes much of the obit to rationalizing Armstrong and his cohort's behavior in light of the era.

So, did the "protest" go "horribly wrong" because it resulted in death and injury unlike when Armstrong and his brother previously attempted to bomb a government facility from an airplane? One must assume so - Bernardine Dohrn says "Hi" from the campus of Northwestern! Absent that untidy fact even his subsequent imprisonment for running a meth lab would likely not have precluded him from joining the throngs of violent ex-hippies making money on the moonbat lecture circuit. What a shame his short career in activism was marred by a dead guy.

But don't hold your breath expecting similar mainstream media treatment for a nut who, say, blows up an abortion clinic. The rationalizing power of the memory hole has room for only one ideology.