Anyone who's been following the Militia movement has heard of these guys. Nevertheless, I'm glad 60 Minutes took some time to shine a spotlight on them in yesterday's broadcast:
(CBS News video can't get it's act together. The video that is coming through their "Embed this clip" button is of some magnetic kid from Croatia, and not the story I'm talking about. Hence, if you want to see the video, click here.)
It is interesting that this movement has a lot of clear ties to some very racist organizations in the past, yet there is Wesley Snipes, apparently (according to the piece) using Sovereign language in legal filings about his Tax Case.
Personally, I think that says more about Wesley Snipes than it does this movement.
Showing posts with label Domestic Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic Terrorism. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok's had himself a busy day (AUDIO and VIDEO)
First, Mark's Interview with Randi Rhodes:
And his second interview with Keith:
And his second interview with Keith:
Friday, October 22, 2010
CNN: FBI says Powder in package sent to Arizona congressman is 'nontoxic' (VIDEO)
Coming off Keith's breaking news last night, I'd say a lot of us were worried.
Well, apparently it wasn't so "confirmed", this according to CNN:
Even though he's a fellow Liberal, I'm not the biggest Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) fan in the world (He was in the "Bill Killer" caucus for a time). Still, I want him safe, alive and in the Congress to keep on aruging with.
But we know who did this, and we know what they'll tolerate.
Well, apparently it wasn't so "confirmed", this according to CNN:
The suspicious powder inside a swastika-adorned package sent to an Arizona congressman is "nontoxic," an FBI spokesman said Friday.
Staffers checking mail in the Tucson, Arizona, office of U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva on Thursday found a white, powdery substance and drawings of two swastikas inside an envelope, Grijalva campaign spokesman Adam Sarvana told CNN.
Almost a dozen people were in the office when the incident happened around 12:30 p.m. Thursday (3:30 p.m. ET), he said. All of them were checked on-scene by local authorities and sent home.
Scientists at an FBI laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, conducted a full analysis of the substance, according to Sarvana. Those tests came back negative midday Friday, according to FBI Special Agent Manuel Johnson.
Johnson said the FBI would have no further comments, as "the investigation is ongoing."
The incident was the third security issue at Grijalva's district offices this year, Sarvana said.
Even though he's a fellow Liberal, I'm not the biggest Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) fan in the world (He was in the "Bill Killer" caucus for a time). Still, I want him safe, alive and in the Congress to keep on aruging with.
But we know who did this, and we know what they'll tolerate.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Tea Partiers deliver death threats...on other Republicans!!
What?!?!?
Granted, normally Tom Ross is an enemy, but he's a political enemy. That's all. He's the opposition. At the end of the day, you want him beaten at the ballot box, and that's it.
Okay, maybe...MAYBE...you go Nyah-Nyah-Nyah, but even that's pushing things.
The guy quoted in the piece is absolutely right, threats like this have no place in our Democracy. If you have half a brain cell in your head I shouldn't have to state the obvious but we're dealing with Teabaggers here.
I hope the Justice Department finds this guy (or gal) and puts them away for a long stretch in the clink. I hope Tom Ross and his family are okay, and are able to get home soon.
The chairman of the Delaware Republican Party received a death threat last week over his support for Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del) over Tea Party challenger Christine O'Donnell in the state's upcoming Senate primary, a party official confirmed to the Huffington Post.
The threat, issued in the form of an email, told chairman Tom Ross that he deserves "a bullet in the head" for backing "political ass-kissing RINO's" [Republicans in name only].
"It is one thing to have your country screwed over by socialists, it is far worse to be backstabbed by people pretending to be your friends," the email read. "We will either rid the GOP of pieces of shit like you, or we will start a new 'Common Sense Conservative' party and render you all useless."
The threat was serious enough to compel Ross to leave his home, temporarily, and to spur an investigation from the Department of Justice said the official with the Delaware GOP (a DoJ official did not immediately return a request for comment). It also was sinister enough to alarm state party officials who are unaccustomed to not just threats of violence but even to heated political contests like the one unfolding in the state's Republican primary.
"It is just scary what is going on right now," the official said. "Tom is a loyal and dedicated Republican officer in Delaware... the position is unpaid and his job as party chairman is to defend and promote the candidates... It is disgusting, it is amazing and it has no place in our democracy."
Granted, normally Tom Ross is an enemy, but he's a political enemy. That's all. He's the opposition. At the end of the day, you want him beaten at the ballot box, and that's it.
Okay, maybe...MAYBE...you go Nyah-Nyah-Nyah, but even that's pushing things.
The guy quoted in the piece is absolutely right, threats like this have no place in our Democracy. If you have half a brain cell in your head I shouldn't have to state the obvious but we're dealing with Teabaggers here.
I hope the Justice Department finds this guy (or gal) and puts them away for a long stretch in the clink. I hope Tom Ross and his family are okay, and are able to get home soon.
Monday, August 9, 2010
"As Long As Someone Else is on the Bottom", the racist history of the Tea Party
Nothing has quite gotten under my skin in recent weeks than being told, by Tea-Parties of course, that the Tea-Party is not racist.
Personally, I felt the NAACP was being horribly polite when they asked the Tea-Party to only denounce the “racist elements” in their ranks. You might as well have asked them to hand over their right arms, because racial animus is what’s driving the movement in the first place.
Proof of inherent racism on their part has always been there. It screams to me at every protest or a rally. Then again, I've been living with crap like this all my life, so I know what I’m looking for. You only have to look at the long, sordid history of this country to see it as well.
There have been, and always will be right-wing movements who stand in opposition to anything a Democrat does; but none seems so driven by personal animus as the Tea Party. None seems as incoherent, as lacking in policy ideas as this one is. (Until they delineate their spending cuts, they remain incoherent in my book).
Spending under the Bush Administration (wiping out a Clinton-era Surplus) was far more profligate than it was under this President, yet Tea-Party anger did not show itself until Obama. Why? The continual chant of “they’re coming to take your guns” has never been louder, but gun rights have expanded under the Obama Administration (in ways that even I as one of his supporters, find alarming). Why? I remain an advocate for actual Socialized Medicine, but what passed earlier this year was nowhere near anything like what they have in Canada, France or the United Kingdom (I would have settled for any one of the three). What actually passed was similar to something passed by former Republican Governor (and newly minted hyper-conservative) Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, yet its passage sent these people into apoplexy. Why?
Could it be that Tea Party rage has more to do with the man that the policies, or should I say…the idea of the man?
Listen to the words they choose to assault the President: “threat to our way of life” “he can’t do that”, “he’s taking our liberty away” or its remix: “our freedom away” (freedom to do what, exactly?). The word slavery is used quite often, with the President in the role of the Slave Master. Former Governor Palin went so far as to intimate that President Obama was a “threat to our children” at one point. They rarely say the President’s actions are wrong. Instead, they call him names: Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, Statist. Never mind that those three political philopshies have nothing to do with each other.
And mind you this is before we even get to the images of the President made up as the Joker, a Witch Doctor or a Pimp.
This is not about the President's agenda. This is about him. It doesn't seem enough to defeat him at the polls, the very idea of him has to be wiped out. Everything he and this Congress have done does has to be repealed...everything.
I tell friends who were born abroad that to truly understand America, you have to understand our Civil War. The motivations around the war are important, but certain character traits that we’re now seeing first reared their ugly head back then. In effect, the genesis of the Tea Party was back then, and not in a harbor in Boston.
Abraham Lincoln, ran for President as an Anti-Slavery Republican. All the while, the South threatened succession if he was elected.
Think about that. The South was telling the North it had no say in the matter. It’s choice wasn’t going to count (which clearly was to vote for Lincoln). It was saying that the North had no right to be a part of National Governance. “You have to do what we say”, it was telling the North. “Only our interests matter.”
If you think about the Tea Party, after having lost not one, but two elections, and their constant whine of how “they’re not being listened to?” What’s the difference? They are telling the majority of Americans (again, Barack Obama won more votes than any President in history) that only Tea Partiers need to be listened to.
It goes back to something Jon Stewart said a while ago: “You're confusing tyranny with losing.”
It’s a theme we’ll be seeing again.
The next irony about the Civil War was that while it was fought (by the South) in defense of the slavery, the majority of the people fighting for slavery couldn’t afford a slave themselves in a million years. Poor white men were fighting and dying for the right of rich white men to keep slaves. (Some disagree with the shading of that statistic, but still...)
Why the hell would they do this? It seems like a lot to ask, until you remember that the poor white man’s sense of self was on the line here. (This is there the Andy Hall piece, linked to above, and this one dovetail perfectly. He uses the word "vested". The author says "sense of self." Same difference.)
The poor white man may not have been able to afford a slave of his own. He might not have a lot of money (if any), land, or a steady job. He had one thing, though. He knew he was better than a slave. Or put in the colloquialism of the time: “I may be poor white trash, but at least I ain’t no n----r.”
In 2006, while promoting his book Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean dropped this little bit of knowledge in an interview with Keith Olbermann:
The authoritarian personality, those more likely to do the following (or demand to be followed) are more likely to be Conservative.
Think about that in relation to those poor white Soldiers fighting for the rights of Slaveholders in the Confederacy. Think about that in relation to those Tea-Partiers protesting on behalf of Insurance Companies during the Health Care fight.
It is the idea that the person above you, should be above you as if by divine providence. They’re above you for a reason. Just accept it.
Of course, any hierarchy is a lot easier to accept when it’s not you at the bottom. Thanks to slavery, there would always someone else at the bottom.
But what happens when the hierarchy is challenged? What happens when someone says “we don’t like you keeping other human beings in perpetual servitude”? We get the Civil War. What happens when someone decides they should have the right to vote? First you get Reconstruction, and an eighty year delay until the Civil Rights movement.
What happens…if you get a Black President?
We get the Tea Party.
When the hierarchy is challenged, people benefiting (or vested in it) from it will always erupt to madness and rage. Watch this segment from Eyes on the Prize, focusing on the Little Rock Nine in 1957. Watch toward the 7:00 minute mark when the black students finally get into the school.
(For the record, the white lady who saved Elizabeth Eckford’s life wasn’t identified in the film. Her name was Grace Lorch. Her husband, Lee, is still alive today, and is a friend of the family.)
Look at the reaction of the crowd and tell me it doesn’t remind you of some of the lower moments of the Tea Party Movement.
Where is this rage coming from? There’s nothing about the mere presence of black people that should offend. Black people are a constant presence in their lives. They’re in their homes, preparing their food, serving their food, handling their children, cleaning up after them. They are everywhere. In a major sense, nothing about the lives of these angry White People has changed.
Yet everything has changed. The idea of what their lives are like has changed. The moment the Little Rock Nine enter that High School, they’re not at the bottom anymore. They’re the equals of a lot of white folk, maybe more.
And when true equality starts to be achieved, what do the people who have benefited from inequality do? What do these authoritarians do?
They turn on the authority.
My favorite part was the little woman, her face scrunched up in anger, shoving that Police barricade, then turning away in shame, because she doesn’t want to look like that for the camera. The hierarchy is great when it insures that you’re up, and someone else is down. The nano-second it can’t guarantee that, what good is it?
And now we return to the Tea Party already in progress.
The President of the United States is, in most respects, the ultimate authority figure for this country. Constitutional realities dictate equal roles for Congress and the Courts, but the relationship between any citizen and their Government is really formed between the citizen and the President, through the Television.
And now that ultimate authority figure staring at them through the tube is a black man. Don't tell me that that's not making a difference..
If the normal position of the Authoritarian Conservative is that the man at the top must be respected, what do authoritarians do when that person can’t be respected because he is, because of his nature, allegedly beneath them?
The President may have been elected over a two-year time frame, with every move subjected to public scrutiny, and every mistake magnified a thousand-fold but if you're one of these Authoritarians, he must have somehow cheated his way into office (Birthers). This is where the racism begins. Even if he didn’t cheat his way, he cannot be allowed to do anything while in office (Tenthers; Deficit Chickenhawks). In any case, we will make him listen to us, despite the fact there was an Election, and he gained more votes than anyone in American History. And if he does something without my permission (once again, only the consent of the quote-unquote Southener matters), then we will leave this union (Rick Perry, and too many others).
How else could an obvious inferior been elected to the highest office in the land? "Above me," in the authoritarian mind.
When you hear a Tea-Partier say, he’s a “threat to our way of life” how does that sound now?
We you hear one of say “he can’t do that”, isn’t he’s really saying “He can’t tell me what to do”? (And you can replace “he” with the six letter epithet of your choice).
We one of them pipes up with “he’s taking our liberty away” or the equally logic-free “he’s taking our freedom away”, you can assume it means, he’s taking away my place in order of things. Hell, it was said in a New York Times poll, Tea Partiers said yes to the question of whether too much been made of the problems facing black people?
African-Americans have been listening to white people for a long time. We’ve been doing it for four-hundred years. Our lives have depended on it.
When you are thought of first and foremost as chattel, your lives aren’t valued very much. The prospect of near-instaneous death was a daily fact of life. Thus, listening to White people isn’t a hobby. It can’t be.
We know how to listen to you. We know when a threat is at hand. We know when our lives are in danger. It is a fear that is passed on from generation to generation. I have grown up in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., nowhere near any ghetto or slum in the world, and I am telling you, my children (when I have them) will learn this as well.
When I look at the Tea Party, I know what I’m hearing. I know where they stand, because I have heard it all before.
Personally, I felt the NAACP was being horribly polite when they asked the Tea-Party to only denounce the “racist elements” in their ranks. You might as well have asked them to hand over their right arms, because racial animus is what’s driving the movement in the first place.
Proof of inherent racism on their part has always been there. It screams to me at every protest or a rally. Then again, I've been living with crap like this all my life, so I know what I’m looking for. You only have to look at the long, sordid history of this country to see it as well.
There have been, and always will be right-wing movements who stand in opposition to anything a Democrat does; but none seems so driven by personal animus as the Tea Party. None seems as incoherent, as lacking in policy ideas as this one is. (Until they delineate their spending cuts, they remain incoherent in my book).
Spending under the Bush Administration (wiping out a Clinton-era Surplus) was far more profligate than it was under this President, yet Tea-Party anger did not show itself until Obama. Why? The continual chant of “they’re coming to take your guns” has never been louder, but gun rights have expanded under the Obama Administration (in ways that even I as one of his supporters, find alarming). Why? I remain an advocate for actual Socialized Medicine, but what passed earlier this year was nowhere near anything like what they have in Canada, France or the United Kingdom (I would have settled for any one of the three). What actually passed was similar to something passed by former Republican Governor (and newly minted hyper-conservative) Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, yet its passage sent these people into apoplexy. Why?
Could it be that Tea Party rage has more to do with the man that the policies, or should I say…the idea of the man?
Listen to the words they choose to assault the President: “threat to our way of life” “he can’t do that”, “he’s taking our liberty away” or its remix: “our freedom away” (freedom to do what, exactly?). The word slavery is used quite often, with the President in the role of the Slave Master. Former Governor Palin went so far as to intimate that President Obama was a “threat to our children” at one point. They rarely say the President’s actions are wrong. Instead, they call him names: Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, Statist. Never mind that those three political philopshies have nothing to do with each other.
And mind you this is before we even get to the images of the President made up as the Joker, a Witch Doctor or a Pimp.
This is not about the President's agenda. This is about him. It doesn't seem enough to defeat him at the polls, the very idea of him has to be wiped out. Everything he and this Congress have done does has to be repealed...everything.
I tell friends who were born abroad that to truly understand America, you have to understand our Civil War. The motivations around the war are important, but certain character traits that we’re now seeing first reared their ugly head back then. In effect, the genesis of the Tea Party was back then, and not in a harbor in Boston.
Abraham Lincoln, ran for President as an Anti-Slavery Republican. All the while, the South threatened succession if he was elected.
Think about that. The South was telling the North it had no say in the matter. It’s choice wasn’t going to count (which clearly was to vote for Lincoln). It was saying that the North had no right to be a part of National Governance. “You have to do what we say”, it was telling the North. “Only our interests matter.”
If you think about the Tea Party, after having lost not one, but two elections, and their constant whine of how “they’re not being listened to?” What’s the difference? They are telling the majority of Americans (again, Barack Obama won more votes than any President in history) that only Tea Partiers need to be listened to.
It goes back to something Jon Stewart said a while ago: “You're confusing tyranny with losing.”
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Baracknophobia - Obey | ||||
| ||||
It’s a theme we’ll be seeing again.
The next irony about the Civil War was that while it was fought (by the South) in defense of the slavery, the majority of the people fighting for slavery couldn’t afford a slave themselves in a million years. Poor white men were fighting and dying for the right of rich white men to keep slaves. (Some disagree with the shading of that statistic, but still...)
Why the hell would they do this? It seems like a lot to ask, until you remember that the poor white man’s sense of self was on the line here. (This is there the Andy Hall piece, linked to above, and this one dovetail perfectly. He uses the word "vested". The author says "sense of self." Same difference.)
The poor white man may not have been able to afford a slave of his own. He might not have a lot of money (if any), land, or a steady job. He had one thing, though. He knew he was better than a slave. Or put in the colloquialism of the time: “I may be poor white trash, but at least I ain’t no n----r.”
In 2006, while promoting his book Conservatives Without Conscience, John Dean dropped this little bit of knowledge in an interview with Keith Olbermann:
I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.
The authoritarian personality, those more likely to do the following (or demand to be followed) are more likely to be Conservative.
Think about that in relation to those poor white Soldiers fighting for the rights of Slaveholders in the Confederacy. Think about that in relation to those Tea-Partiers protesting on behalf of Insurance Companies during the Health Care fight.
It is the idea that the person above you, should be above you as if by divine providence. They’re above you for a reason. Just accept it.
Of course, any hierarchy is a lot easier to accept when it’s not you at the bottom. Thanks to slavery, there would always someone else at the bottom.
But what happens when the hierarchy is challenged? What happens when someone says “we don’t like you keeping other human beings in perpetual servitude”? We get the Civil War. What happens when someone decides they should have the right to vote? First you get Reconstruction, and an eighty year delay until the Civil Rights movement.
What happens…if you get a Black President?
We get the Tea Party.
When the hierarchy is challenged, people benefiting (or vested in it) from it will always erupt to madness and rage. Watch this segment from Eyes on the Prize, focusing on the Little Rock Nine in 1957. Watch toward the 7:00 minute mark when the black students finally get into the school.
(For the record, the white lady who saved Elizabeth Eckford’s life wasn’t identified in the film. Her name was Grace Lorch. Her husband, Lee, is still alive today, and is a friend of the family.)
Look at the reaction of the crowd and tell me it doesn’t remind you of some of the lower moments of the Tea Party Movement.
Where is this rage coming from? There’s nothing about the mere presence of black people that should offend. Black people are a constant presence in their lives. They’re in their homes, preparing their food, serving their food, handling their children, cleaning up after them. They are everywhere. In a major sense, nothing about the lives of these angry White People has changed.
Yet everything has changed. The idea of what their lives are like has changed. The moment the Little Rock Nine enter that High School, they’re not at the bottom anymore. They’re the equals of a lot of white folk, maybe more.
And when true equality starts to be achieved, what do the people who have benefited from inequality do? What do these authoritarians do?
They turn on the authority.
My favorite part was the little woman, her face scrunched up in anger, shoving that Police barricade, then turning away in shame, because she doesn’t want to look like that for the camera. The hierarchy is great when it insures that you’re up, and someone else is down. The nano-second it can’t guarantee that, what good is it?
And now we return to the Tea Party already in progress.
The President of the United States is, in most respects, the ultimate authority figure for this country. Constitutional realities dictate equal roles for Congress and the Courts, but the relationship between any citizen and their Government is really formed between the citizen and the President, through the Television.
And now that ultimate authority figure staring at them through the tube is a black man. Don't tell me that that's not making a difference..
If the normal position of the Authoritarian Conservative is that the man at the top must be respected, what do authoritarians do when that person can’t be respected because he is, because of his nature, allegedly beneath them?
The President may have been elected over a two-year time frame, with every move subjected to public scrutiny, and every mistake magnified a thousand-fold but if you're one of these Authoritarians, he must have somehow cheated his way into office (Birthers). This is where the racism begins. Even if he didn’t cheat his way, he cannot be allowed to do anything while in office (Tenthers; Deficit Chickenhawks). In any case, we will make him listen to us, despite the fact there was an Election, and he gained more votes than anyone in American History. And if he does something without my permission (once again, only the consent of the quote-unquote Southener matters), then we will leave this union (Rick Perry, and too many others).
How else could an obvious inferior been elected to the highest office in the land? "Above me," in the authoritarian mind.
When you hear a Tea-Partier say, he’s a “threat to our way of life” how does that sound now?
We you hear one of say “he can’t do that”, isn’t he’s really saying “He can’t tell me what to do”? (And you can replace “he” with the six letter epithet of your choice).
We one of them pipes up with “he’s taking our liberty away” or the equally logic-free “he’s taking our freedom away”, you can assume it means, he’s taking away my place in order of things. Hell, it was said in a New York Times poll, Tea Partiers said yes to the question of whether too much been made of the problems facing black people?
African-Americans have been listening to white people for a long time. We’ve been doing it for four-hundred years. Our lives have depended on it.
When you are thought of first and foremost as chattel, your lives aren’t valued very much. The prospect of near-instaneous death was a daily fact of life. Thus, listening to White people isn’t a hobby. It can’t be.
We know how to listen to you. We know when a threat is at hand. We know when our lives are in danger. It is a fear that is passed on from generation to generation. I have grown up in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., nowhere near any ghetto or slum in the world, and I am telling you, my children (when I have them) will learn this as well.
When I look at the Tea Party, I know what I’m hearing. I know where they stand, because I have heard it all before.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Dangerous hypocrisy of being against the "Ground-Zero" Mosque
Today:
But...
Yeah, but screw whether or not the Muslims want to open a community center four blocks from Ground Zero, right Sarah? That's the real danger.
After all, why should we help Muslim Americans who want to help us catch terrorists by showing respect to their religion in an allegedly open society.
Federal indictments unsealed Thursday in Minnesota, Alabama and California charge 14 people with terrorism offenses for allegedly aiding the radical Islamist al-Shabab organization in Somalia.
In announcing the indictments, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the charges reflect a disturbing trend in which al-Shabab, which has links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, has appealed to U.S. citizens of Somali descent to join the group's battle against a weak U.S.-backed transitional government and African Union peacekeeping forces in Somalia.
But...
[Holder] praised the American Muslim community for being "strong partners in fighting this emerging threat," saying its members "have provided critical assistance to law enforcement in helping to disrupt terrorist plots and combat radicalization."
Yeah, but screw whether or not the Muslims want to open a community center four blocks from Ground Zero, right Sarah? That's the real danger.
After all, why should we help Muslim Americans who want to help us catch terrorists by showing respect to their religion in an allegedly open society.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The President's Speech on the end of the Iraq War (White House Video)
I'm still not sure why the MSNBC Feed cut off at 30:50, but here is the White House's Video, which took an unusually long time for them to post.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
"The Stupidity of Liberal Apathy" (National Security Edition)
Jonathan Cohn started this meme on the Stupidity of Liberal Apathy. It was followed up by Andrew Sullivan. Now, Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director of the National Security Network, wrote the following in response to Mr. Cohn's original piece:
Granted, I didn't buy her line about Mr. Cohn "falling into the same trap as his apathetic Netroots liberals as far as national security is concerned", but the list was good and instructive. Once again: good stuff in bold, bad stuff in red.
Granted, I didn't buy her line about Mr. Cohn "falling into the same trap as his apathetic Netroots liberals as far as national security is concerned", but the list was good and instructive. Once again: good stuff in bold, bad stuff in red.
Jonathan Cohn falls into the same trap as his apathetic Netroots liberals as far as national security is concerned. The Rodney Dangerfield of the Obama Administration, it can’t even get enough of their attention to be disrespected. (It should be said that Netroots organizers convened their first-ever broadly-themed foreign policy panel to take a look at exactly this question, and invited my organization, the National Security Network, to put it together, so give them some credit. Like many of the successes described below, it’s a work in progress.)
And yet. In 2008, Americans said they were anxious about terrorism, about Iraq, about US global standing. Liberals felt we were trapped on a path toward expanding, endless wars and shrinking interaction with global partners on global problems. President Obama will have us down to 50,000 troops in Iraq (from 145,000 in February 2009) and an end to combat missions next month. His Administration revived the international consensus on reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, and safeguarding nuclear materials. Next month will likely get the new START Treaty through the Senate (albeit with an ugly, healthcare-like orgy of side deals).
The economy looks bad now, but with full global recession it might have been much worse–Administration leadership prevented global meltdown and created a more representative and inclusive forum, the G20, to manage global recovery.
The first 18 months of the Administration saw more terrorism convictions in civilian courts than did five years of Bush Administration military tribunals–and the killing or capturing of half the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, according to CIA Director Leon Panetta. Counter-terrorism experts like Stephen Flynn of the Center for National Policy argue that the smaller-scale terrorism attempts we’re now seeing (and thwarting) reflect an important success–Al Qaeda no longer enjoys the safety in its AfPak border hideaways to plot complex, multi-part attacks such as September 11.
The Administration successfully reset relations with Russia to get things we want in other fora (Afghanistan, Iran). Iran itself is weaker, more isolated externally and divided internally, than at any time in recent memory. Last year, the Administration and Congress passed through a significant increase in aid to fight poverty and disease around the world. Global public opinion of the US moved up nearly everywhere, soaring in Western Europe, Russia and China. Americans who work at the UN and other international bodies tell stories of foreign nationals sidling up to them in the halls with a message: “We’re so glad you’re back.”
Hey, I can be critical, too. The opportunity to close Guantanamo promptly, send most of its inmates to humane destinations and try those deserving in our civilian courts fell victim to ugly politics and inattention. Nobody, not even General Petraeus, thinks Afghanistan is going well enough as the Administration tries to hold steady on its plan for an “inflection point” next summer. (Speaking of Afghanistan, just 8% of Netroots attendees told pollsters that “finishing Afghanistan” should be the Administration’s top priority, vs. 74% favoring “improve the jobs situation.” I’d say the White House hears them loud and clear.) Middle East results have disappointed. The effort to find a post-Bush language for the promotion of democracy and human rights remains a work in progress. Some vital longer-term structural questions, about how we organize our nation’s conduct of international affairs and redress the funding and capability imbalance between civilians and the military, have slipped down the priority list in the welter of short-term challenges–as does the effort to explain again and again to Americans what kind of a world it is we are building toward.
Substantively, though, those shortcomings and delays are fixable–if the Administration has the political capital and the time. Where on the domestic side, liberals got the big change and need the enthusiasm to use and keep them, in foreign policy the Administration has fought to clear the path. A changed paradigm is now possible–if liberals can rouse themselves from apathy enough to work for it and embrace politicians when they are supportive, in addition to pummeling them when they are not.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Joe Klein's Mea Culpa on the Iraq War...
Until our recent reunion (when I started reading him again), the Iraq War was the reason I stopped listening to Joe Klein:
"Reluctantly" is a term for editorial discussion. I personally remember him being a little less than reluctant.
As for myself, I deeply regret that once, on television in the days before the war, I reluctantly but foolishly said that going ahead with the invasion might be the right thing to do. I was far more skeptical, and equivocal, in print--I never wrote in favor of the war and repeatedly raised the problems that would accompany it--but skepticism and equivocation were an insufficient reaction, too. In retrospect, the issue then was as clear cut as it is now. It demanded a clarity that I failed to summon. The essential principle is immutable: We should never go to war unless we have been attacked or are under direct, immediate threat of attack. Never. And never again.
"Reluctantly" is a term for editorial discussion. I personally remember him being a little less than reluctant.
The President's Speech on the end of the Iraq War (VIDEO)
Joe Klein, Time Magazine:
There is no "victory" in Iraq, nor will there be. There is something resembling stability, but that might not last, either. There is a semblance of democracy, but that may dissolve over time, or in the next few months, into a Shi'ite dictatorship--which, if not well-run, will yield to the near-inevitable military coup. Yes, Saddam is gone--and that is a good thing. The Kurds have a greater measure of independence and don't have to live in fear of mass murder, which is a good thing, too. But Iran has been aggrandized. Its Iraqi allies, especially Muqtada Sadr's populist movement, remain a force that will play a major role--arguably one more central than ours--in shaping the future of the country. This attempt by western neo-colonialists--that is, the Bush Administration--to construct an amenable Iraq will most likely end no better than previous western attempts have. Certainly, even if something resembling democracy prevails, the U.S. invasion and occupation--the carnage and tragedy it wrought--will not be remembered fondly by Iraqis anytime soon. We will own the destruction in perpetuity; if the Iraqis manage to cobble themselves a decent society, they will see it, correctly, as an achievement of their own.
...
It is the way of the world that Barack Obama's announcement today of the end of the combat phase in Iraq, and the beginning of a 16-month period of advice and support for the Iraqi security forces before U.S. troops leave in 2011, will not be remembered as vividly as George Bush's juvenile march across the deck of an aircraft carrier, costumed as a combat aviator in a golden sunset, to announce--six years and tens of thousands of lives prematurely--the "end of combat operations." But celebration is not appropriate now. What is appropriate is what the President did: promise that amends will be made to those whose lives were shattered and that their service in an unnecessary cause will be honored. What is also appropriate now is a mournful colloquy on America's place in the world--and how our natural leadership among nations, a consequence of the freedom that Bush misconstrued, is best utilized in the future.
I got to say, the President’s speech was good, but the crowd’s reaction was even better. This was not a tame, laid back, polite VFW crowd, but a raucous, rowdy, full-bore, full-on Disabled American Vets crowd.
And I liked it.
UPDATE: 4:39pm Pacific: Why the MSNBC Video cut things short at 30:50, I don't know. When the White House Video is put online, I'll put it up.
UPDATE: August 4, 2010: It took 'em long enough, but here it is.
Monday, September 28, 2009
TPM: Sparkman Case Update. It gets worse.
Okay, this has gone from a case of the FBI trying to tamp down wild speculation, to the FBI knowing good and well what's happened here and not wanting any interference in their investigation.
As I've said before, the less the FBI talks, the closer (I feel) they come to getting these guys.
But as I've said, Talking Points Memo has new details, and they ain't pretty:
As I've said before, the less the FBI talks, the closer (I feel) they come to getting these guys.
But as I've said, Talking Points Memo has new details, and they ain't pretty:
When Census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead earlier this month, he was naked and gagged, with duct tape over his eyes. Duct tape also bound Sparkman's hands and feet.
...
The word "Fed" was written on Sparkman's chest, setting off speculation last week that the Census worker and part-time schoolteacher was killed in an act of anti-government sentiment.
Sources also told the AP that Sparkman's Census Bureau ID was found taped to his head and shoulder area -- a detail which may add to that speculation.
And as was reported last week, Sparkman also had a rope around his neck which was attached to a tree, though his feet were touching the ground.
According to Weaver, a 2003 Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck, containing Sparkman's clothes, was about 50 yards from the body.
Andrew Sullivan: A New Low.
Ugh.
(Oh, by the way...the following is written by Andrew Sullivan. It does not represent a new low for Andrew Sullivan. Way big difference.)
(Oh, by the way...the following is written by Andrew Sullivan. It does not represent a new low for Andrew Sullivan. Way big difference.)
We still don't know very much about the death of Bill Sparkman in a brutal scene in Kentucky. But the far right is obviously concerned that its violent anti-government rhetoric might at some point be implicated. So what do these people do? Notorious homophobe Dan Riehl pre-emptively asks if Sparkman was a gay child predator, because he had an adopted son. He has no other evidence at all.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
TPM: The FBI would like us to calm down...
The FBI is starting to push back against some of the stories floating out there about the Sparkman Murder. (And I'm still calling it a murder. Whether or not he was killed because he was working for the Census is way up in the air, but I doubt, even with these new details, that it was a suicide.)
As long as they're not abandoning the investigation (and they're not), fine. They can work in total secrecy if needs be. Just tell us what you know at the end of the day (by which I mean, the investigation).
As long as they're not abandoning the investigation (and they're not), fine. They can work in total secrecy if needs be. Just tell us what you know at the end of the day (by which I mean, the investigation).
Bill Sparkman, the Census worker found dead in Kentucky recently was not found hanging from a tree, according to an FBI spokesman. Rather, David Beyer told TPMmuckraker, Sparkman's feet were planted on the ground. A rope around Sparkman's neck was attached to a tree.
An anonymously sourced AP report said that Sparkman was hanging from a tree, and that he had the word "Fed" scrawled on his chest.
Beyer, a spokesman with the FBI's Louisville, Kentucky filed office, declined to comment on the accuracy of the "Fed" detail. But he was at pains to ratchet back speculation that Sparkman was killed in an act of anti-government sentiment, saying that investigators had not yet determined even whether the death was a homicide.
Previous reporting "left the impression that [Sparkman] was found strung up in a tree because he was a federal employee," Beyer said. "At this juncture that's not accurate." Beyer added that Sparkman died of asphyxiation.
Earlier this afternoon, a state police spokesman told Greg Sargent at the Plum Line that the AP report contained errors, and that Sparkman was "in contact with the ground" when he was found.
TPM: New details on the Sparkman Murder, and none of them necessarily good...
1) Sparkman, a part-time Census Worker found dead on September 12th may not have been hanged, as his body was in partial contact with the ground.
2) Sparkman was apparently warned by a retired Trooper not to do his work in some parts of rural Kentucky.
Sparkman's death, to me, is still looking like a homicide, but an Anti-Federal Hate Crime motive is still way up in the air.
2) Sparkman was apparently warned by a retired Trooper not to do his work in some parts of rural Kentucky.
"I said, you're going into rural Kentucky, isolated areas. Be careful over there -- people may not understand that you're there to gather statistics."
Sparkman's death, to me, is still looking like a homicide, but an Anti-Federal Hate Crime motive is still way up in the air.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
HuffPo: Census Worker murdered...
From the Huffington Post, via the AP.
And yes, I blame the extremist rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann for this happening.
And yes, I blame the extremist rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann for this happening.
The FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery, and a law enforcement official told The Associated Press the word 'fed" was scrawled on the dead man's chest.
The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and occasional teacher, was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky. The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation.
Investigators are still trying to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was related to his government job or to anti-government sentiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)