Napolitano Unsure if Al Qaeda a Greater Threat than Right-Wing Extremists
John on April 15, 2009 at 12:19 am
Less than a month ago, Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said she wasn’t sure which was a greater threat to the US: Al Qaeda or Timothy McVeigh-style domestic terrorism. She made the comment during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on March 19th:
BLITZER: Do you still use that phrase that there is a war on terror.
NAPOLITANO: Yes. Well, yes. Terrorism is a threat that is with us and sadly enough will never go away. The thing is not to create fear about it but to say look, there is risk of terror either coming from abroad or homegrown. It’s about preparation and being able to recover so that people have the confidence that goes with knowing that we’re prepared.
BLITZER: And so do you still consider the United States be engaged in the war on terror?
NAPOLITANO: I consider the United States, yes, to be very engaged in and working with our international partners and others in preventing terrorist acts from occurring.
BLITZER: Is it a bigger threat from your perspective and other [ed. - another?] al Qaeda and foreign related terror attack against the United States or domestic terrorism along the lines of an Oklahoma City bombing?
NAPOLITANO: That’s difficult to say because both are risks that are with us and will be with us and so what the American people need to know is that the Department of Homeland Security, as the secretary of Homeland Security, we’re thinking all the time about these issues. We’re working all these times on what we can do realistically to prevent, to interfere but also to prepare should something happen.
Is this really a close call? Apparently it is for Janet Napolitano.
The term “right-wing extremists” isn’t used by Blitzer in this interview, but let’s face it…Timothy McVeigh, who had connections to militia movements and was a veteran of the Gulf War, is the poster child for right-wing extremists.
Al Qaeda vs. Right-Wing Extremism: According to Napolitano it’s a toss up.Is it a coincidence that a DHS report on the rise of right-wing extremists which came to light yesterday also highlights the danger of militias and returning war vets? Or is it more probably that the report — which the White House is now backing away from — simply reflects Napolitano’s previously enunciated view of the dangers facing America.
DHS spokesmen have tried to brush off criticism by noting that the department issued a report on left-wing extremists in January. However, Fox News obtained a copy of the earlier report and points out:
It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.
Finally, one note of caution about the source. The statement quoted above does not appear to have made it to air on CNN. A You Tube clip of the segment, available here, shows that this section (plus a little more) was edited out of the broadcast. The rush transcript at CNN.com follows what aired and does not include this section either. However, the transcript on the Arizona Central website (linked above) appears to be a fuller transcript of the complete interview. Notably, this AZ Central version is the one currently linked on the DHS’s own website.
UPDATE: Ed at Hot Air notes that Napolitano is starting to back away from the report a bit.
[HT: Morgen dug the transcript but didn't have time to write it tonight. I added a few details.]
Category: Politics |
So it follows, knowing a leftwing extremist who bombed the pentagon makes you a leftwing extremist — right?
Or how about attending rev Wright’s church for 20 years?
Seems there is a lot that applies to the teleprompter one.
April 15, 2009 @ 7:20 amI thought Napolitano was a variety of multi-flavored, striped ice cream!
Wait–no, that’s Neopolitan.
*whew*
Yeah–it seems you’re on the “list” of potential “domestic terrorists” if you think the 10th Amendment still applies, oppose abortion on demand and social services benefits to illegal aliens, or do a lot of name-dropping from the Founders.
April 15, 2009 @ 11:52 amNapolitano is a perfect example of a living brain donor. My second home is in Arizona. She’s as nutty as our pin-headed, floppy-eared, Somali-shooting, teleprompter-addicted, there’s “56 states in the US” Commander in Chief.
April 15, 2009 @ 5:18 pmJim:
It might just be a wee tad bit worse than HER being brain free. Other forces are at work on this. She’s supposedly the grand pu-bah of the new face of the DHS, but perhaps there’s more to the face than the new face?
There’s more to the poster than the eyes that follow you throughout the room.
Redacting George Orwell:
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.
He loved Big SISTER.”
April 15, 2009 @ 5:46 pmThe white supremacists and neo nazis among others, have openly embraced AQ ideals and principles. They share many common goals. Is this what passes for right wing? I don’t think so.
The nazis are national socialists…property of the left wing. Sorry lefties, you own them.
The right wing talks, while the left is engaged in direct action efforts. Ayers, Weather Underground, ALF, PETA, so many others…are all left wing and prone to violence to make political statements.
The media has attempted to paint McVeigh and some other questionable characters as right wing. Wishful thinking on the part of the media.
Tim McVeigh served during the first gulf war, and he made some friends while deployed over there. The OKC bombing was thoughtfully laid out in painstaking detail. It was no accident that he parked the explosives directly in front of the daycare center located within the Murrah building. He did the recon. He was delayed, by almost twenty minutes because another truck was parked in the spot, that he wanted, in front of the daycare. He knew what he was doing.
OBL has said in statements, going back to the early days of AQ (early 90’s), that American children were not off limits, for as muslim children died, so would American children.
McVeigh used the same type of explosives, that was used in the first bombing of WTC. Anybody who thinks McVeigh might just be a copycat well…copycats usually don’t do so well in their first attempt.
The OKC bombing had nothing to do with revenge for Ruby Ridge, Waco, or anything else even remotely Christian. Blaming the Christian right, just became a convenient cover story. It was so believable, most people accepted it.
Also note recent events where the white supremacists, and neo-nazis have aligned themselves with AQ and the like, because of their similar views. McVeigh was a white supremacist.
But these events are never reported as such, it doesn’t fit with the agenda of the left and their lapdogs in the media.
Interesting…very interesting…
April 15, 2009 @ 7:38 pm[...] Verum Serum dug this up from a Wolf Blitzer interview last month with Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano: BLITZER: And so do you still consider the United States be engaged in the war on terror? [...]
April 16, 2009 @ 9:52 am[...] Red State: Florida Republicans Embrace Tax Increases Verum Serum: Napolitano Unsure if Al Queda a Greater Threat than Right-Wing Extremists [...]
April 17, 2009 @ 3:03 amWhat is wrong with you guys? Are you SO loyal to the your right-wing ideology that you refuse to admit that at least at this point in history the nut jobs and malcontents are more likely to come from your camp than from the left?
I mean it’s not like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren’t doing everything short of calling for a riot when it comes to insighting violence.
This was an interview with someone who is dealing with current events. It’s not about ideology. GOD FORBID that anything bad is said about your end of the political spectrum.
No wonder you guys lost the election. You are more loyal to your party than you are to either your nation or to reality.
Jeesh!
April 18, 2009 @ 7:31 pmJust out of curiosity, if the freeking NAZI’s are “left wingers” then who exactly are the nut jobs on the right?
Or do you conveniently disown all the nut jobs? What does the “right wing crazy” brain look like exactly?
Or are you guys just as pure as the driven snow?
April 18, 2009 @ 7:34 pmOne last thing:
What’s really hilarious about the whole “Nazi” comment is that I just try to picture a bunch of college professors, gay rights activists, and social workers strapping on swastikas and knee-boots and giving the old Zig-Heil!!
Saying “socialist” Nazi’s are about socialism is about as realistic as saying that:
Republicans are about representing the public
Or that
Democrats are about democracy
Political lables are rhetoric. They are not used to describe anything true, they are used to wrap a group of people into a nice-sounding package so that they can be organized for the sake of power. The lable is picked for it’s political effect NOT for the ideology it represents.
The right is about structured power and control. It’s about tradition, purity of mind, body and family. It’s about keeping the financial status quo in power. In short conservative values. Taken to the logical extreme THIS is what the Nazis were about.
The left is about egalitarianism – fairness and justice for all, redistributing the wealth down to the poor (something the Nazi’s never did – they invented ghetto’s for god’s sake), and generally regulating the fuck out of everything. Taken to the extreme they are communist or anarchists.
But here’s the thing. When ANY form of government results in too much power in too few hands you get totalitarianism.
This happens on the right when business is too successful. In other words if socialism is about the state owning the means of production, fascism is about business owning the state! Thus the extreme of the conservative side of the spectrum is fascist totalitarianism.
If the pendulum swings too far to the left, you get communism or anarchy. In either case this means a vacuum of power, which is immediately filled by the strongest and most ruthless person around. Thus you get totalitarian dictatorship.
Whether you start with a conservative (like Hitler) or a liberal (like Castro), it is NOT the ideology that leads to totalitarianism, it is the concentration of power. For this reason – and here is the part that you fundamentalist conservative Christians don’t’ get – YOU NEED US LIBERALS to keep you from becoming fascist dictators.
Stephen R. Donaldson said “We become what we hate the most.” Do not be fooled in to thinking that the fact that you love Jesus will somehow protect you from becoming what you hate the most. It happens to all of us. So PLEASE if you love your country as I do, STOP LISTENING TO FOX NEWS AND START TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU.
‘nuf said.
April 18, 2009 @ 7:56 pmSusac, you gotta put down the crack pipe and clear your head. Life is better that way.
By the way, just one more of my comments tonight to make you feel better. LOL.
April 18, 2009 @ 8:38 pmPaul,
I understand that you have a theory about how all this works. I just happen to believe it’s not consistent with history.
That’s not an accurate definition of fascism. This wiki page has collection of definitions by different experts. As regards economics, fascism is characterized by “a regulated, state integrated economic sector.” Fascists are “anti-capitalist” and “anti-conservative” (they are also admittedly anti-communist).
I agree there are some elements of fascism which seem more in tune with the right, but the identification of fascism as stemming from conservatism is, I believe, incorrect.
The idea that communism leads to a power vacuum which leads to totalitarianism doesn’t work for me. The Russian, Chinese, Cambodian and Cuban communists were ruthless totalitarians from the start. My point being that it’s not just happenstance when people on the far left become dictators. It’s both intentional and consistent with their outlook.
And a side-question…Why is it then that hard-line communists are said to be on the “far-right”? It seems to me that these labels are indeed “rhetoric” which tend to label any sort of authoritarian, anti-democrat a conservative regardless of their actual religious, social or economic views. The only consistent rule seems to be that no totalitarian is on the left.
But in fact, more often than not, they are on the left. The aforementioned Hugo Chavez is a convenient living example of the leftist totalitarian in mid-stream. He’s a socialist man of the people who also wants to be President for life. The only group offering much opposition to Chavez in his own country at this point is the Catholic Church.
Chavez, Castro, the Sandinistas, FARC — they’re all totalitarians and have all been consistently denigrated by American conservatives and frequently praised by American liberals. So when you say this…
It sounds like an inversion of reality to me. The truth is your side of the aisle frequently cheers on the socialist/communist totalitarians. The term “useful idiots” wasn’t coined (by Lenin) to describe conservatives.
April 18, 2009 @ 10:03 pmPaul, I think you missed the point of this particular post. Let me pose the same question to you that Blizter posed to Napolitano: do YOU think that domestic terrorism or Al Qaeda represents a greater threat to U.S. security?
What strikes me about Napolitano’s response is that she seems so caught up in moving away from Bush policy and redefining the actual threat of foreign terrorism (or should I say “man-made disasters”?), that she is unable to admit what is undeniably true. We can only hope that this is political posturing on her part, and that she really does not believe this.
Please, please tell me that her response is not echoing mainstream liberal thought on this issue.
Btw, stay tuned for an upcoming post on what has been sorely missing from this discussion…actual data regarding right-wing vs. left-wing extremist threats.
April 18, 2009 @ 10:03 pmYes, yes, it’s always the left that has the bad people, and the right are icon’s of virtue. blah, blah blah. And from here the arguement goes back and forth with the whole “who is more like Hitler” arguement.
Neither of you are answering my queston. What is the danger of your ideology? What happens when all the liberals magically disappear from the face of the earth and there is nothing left but conservatives?
What kind of world exists then?
Ok, here is why this is a bullshit question.
On the face of it Blitzer is asking the opinion of an appointed expert. Right now we are in a time when right wing malcontents are being worked into a rabid froth by Glen “let’s act psycho for ratings” Beck, and the knuckle-draggers among the right wing ideologues are predictably getting more unstable. So it’s a valid question, and a valid answer. IN CONTEXT.
But instead of accepting the reality of the circumstances, what I see you guys doing is going into a standard issue “look how stupid the left is for criticizing our virtuous in-group” circle-jerk.
It’s like the context of the whole interview (i.e. current events) is irrelivant to you guys, because you are such ideologues that you simply lack the insight to consider whether or not this interview is even about you or anything you care about.
Sometimes right wing wack jobs come out of the woodwork – given that we have plenty of (right wing) racists in this country, and we have our first black president, this is clearly a valid security concern. It is ALSO a valid question for a reporter to ask a government official.
Yes the news is mostly propaganda. Yes there are corporate (and therefore mostly right-wing BTW) interests behind most of the news. But you know what? I think that the newscorps has been SO discredited by their own yellow journalism and their contribution to our economic meltdown, that they are making real efforts to clean up their act.
So, frankly on a small issue like how the government assesses the threat of wack jobs, I’m just going to give the pair the benefit of the doubt and assume that a professional reporter was doing his job and a government official was doing hers.
What I find disturbing about this thread is not their report (frankly I don’t give a damn). It’s the incessant whiny crybaby bitching that you guys are doing. You know what? You’re a bunch of sore losers, and you are more interested in crying in your beer than in going work solving problems.
I’m helping the unemployed go back to school.
What have you done for your country lately?
As I said, more loyal to your ideology than your country.
Shame on you.
April 19, 2009 @ 12:14 amPaul, it’s a very simple question and I sincerely do not understand why it’s so difficult to answer – for you or Napolitano. It’s not exactly a “gotcha” question – I think it’s actually a very serious policy question. It doesn’t make you or anyone else less of a liberal to view Al Qaeda as a more serious ongoing security threat. And it doesn’t make you any less of an American if you do not believe this to be the case…it just makes you wrong.
And I hardly think it is fair to criticize a sincere concern about how national security threats are being prioritized and managed as “crybaby bitching”.
Lastly, by a strange twist of fate, I happen to own a business that directly facilitates getting the unemployed back to work. I’ll let you be the judge of whether this is better for them and our economy than going back to school.
April 19, 2009 @ 12:39 amHere’s a tax day quote for you. Right-wing extremism may not be as big of a threat al Qaeda, but it’s real, and it shouldn’t be ignored.
“Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate “promises,” they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight … Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.”
Timothy McVeigh
April 19, 2009 @ 8:20 amM.G. – who are you quoting? One person and then with a broad brush you paint all conservatives into that corner. Nice job. For my money, I’ll take living next door to a vet versus some towelhead bowing to Mecca every five minutes.
Susac, you claim Napolitano as an expert? LOL. Anything you say after that is suspect. My second home is in Arizona – that broad is anything but an expert.
Assignment: M.G. and Susac are denied viewing privileges from Mahar for a one week period. MSNBC is also included. After the week, try writing something original.
April 19, 2009 @ 9:32 amPaul,
Where is the evidence? You’re having an emotional outburst claiming that you know this is happening, but you haven’t provided any evidence. And guess what, the report issued by DHS didn’t offer any evidence either. In fact it said up front that there was no specific threat. What there was, was an upcoming date of protest and a need to throw some cold water on it. So the DHS rushed this thing out the door on the 7th, despite warnings from their own lawyers that some of the language was problematic.
The report is supposition, like your own. The facts, as Morgen points out this morning, are not backing up your claims.
April 19, 2009 @ 9:54 amJim,
I don’t know who “Mahar” is, but if you are referring to Bill Maher, I’ve never before seen an entire episode of whatever show he hosts. I’ve also never spent more than five minutes watching CNBC before. I’m not a big TV guy.
I’m also a little confused about my painting conservatives with a broad brush. I didn’t even use the word “conservative” in the post.
I do happen to think that right-wing extremism is real, and it needs to be addressed. Do I think it’s as serious threat as al Qaeda? No, I don’t.
April 19, 2009 @ 10:08 amBut M.G., who are the right wing extremists? Napolitano thinks they’re the guys coming back from Iraq. I don’t see any of the guys I know who’ve been over there gathering in a clandestine manner to overthrow the government. They’re proud of doing their duty and happy to be alive. And Napolitano thinks these guys need to be monitored? This is an issue that needs to be addressed? It’s a non-issue. Napolitano’s stance speaks to her ideology and liberal politics.
April 19, 2009 @ 10:17 amWell, it goes without saying that the vast majority of returning vets are honorable men and women who did their country proud.
And yet, the “poster child” for right-wing extremism, Timothy McVeigh, was a vet. Do I think that all vets need to be monitored? No. But I’m unaware of anyone who does.
And is it in America’s best interest to prevent another Oklahoma City bombing? Definitely.
April 19, 2009 @ 10:26 amJohn, you’re missing my point (deliberately I think). It really doesn’t matter what statistics say. I’ll accept the chart posted that shows right-wing extreimist violence as in the top 10 that you posted today.
My point is that this is a professional reporter doing his job and a governement official doing hers. My own opinion is that while islamic terrorist groups are more likely to commit violence, right wing millitant groups are more likely to commit violence in the US and directed at Obama (out of racism). But that’s just my supposition. I don’t claim to be able to back that up.
What my beef is is NOT the facts of the case. It’s the whiny “the press is out to get us” conspiracy theory mentality that you guys are exhibiting. Now that the Bush administratin isn’t controlling the data flow any more, it’s like your anxiety about the news has risen to a fevered pitch. We live in an age of humongous information flow. Don’t you think we all know what a propaganda campaing looks like?
I mean, I know what one looks like. Maybe you don’t.
What if there really were people on the left who loved their country and actually had better things to do than conspire agaist you? Did you ever think of that?
Maybe us liberals are actual human beings and not the cartoon vilians that EIB and Fox News paint us as. Maybe we have a complete set of moral principals that we apply only slightly differntly than you do. Maybe we are perfectly good human beings who don’t lay awake at night trying to figure out how to take away your guns an give your daughters abortions.
But then again, maybe my whole rant is really just designed to lull you into a false sense of security, so the “left wing fascist” state can come to pass and our secret army of Hitler clones can rise to glorious evil power across the world!
Opps. I’ve said too much.
April 19, 2009 @ 10:30 amPaul,
I’m just trying to respond to your accusations. You said fascists were right wingers. You said without liberals we’d be living in a fascist state. You said this report was justified because of Glenn Beck. And so on.
I don’t know whether this report was actually put out in order to intimidate conservative protesters. I do know that it was rushed. That it doesn’t contain any data. That the department’s own laywers weren’t happy with the language. That it finally broke the day before the protests. And I know that an unnamed Democratic aide on capitol hill was passing a memo around to reporters claiming the Tea Parties were full of dangerous right-wing extremists and Nazis.
Now I’m willing to admit that this could all be coincidence. Maybe there were other reasons to rush the report. Maybe the release just one week before the Tea Parties was chance. Maybe the Democratic aide didn’t even know about the DHS report. Then again, maybe this is exactly what it looks like. I certainly don’t think it’s so far-fetched that it constitutes a “conspiracy theory mentality.” Personally, I think it doesn’t pass the smell test. It also fits with previous efforts to shut down criticism of Obama by any means necessary.
But, hey, if you think it’s all hunky-dorey, well, I guess have a good chuckle at my expense.
April 19, 2009 @ 10:47 amI agree. However, in my mind, the fact that this report was apparently being used by Democratic staffers to tar protesters within 24 hours of it breaking suggests it is not being handled with that kind of seriousness. Also, the Secretary’s previous equivocation about whether al Qaeda or Right Wing Extremists were a bigger threat is very troubling to some of us. Unless she knows something that didn’t show up in that report, it shouldn’t be a tough call.
April 19, 2009 @ 10:53 amSo what you are saying is that your political enemies are saying bad things about your in-group?
Wow! You guys NEVER do that to us!
Isn’t this how the game is played? Or are you only complaining because you are not the one’s in power ATM?
Look, I’m not trying to win an arguement. What I am trying to do is promote insight.
All this dialogue is really about is how “we” are virtuous and “they” are vicious.
Can we really afford to go on thinking that way? Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?
It’s almost as if we all have a bad side, and it’s always easier to be divisive than to bring people together.
But what do you do to make the world a better place? What if we all talked about that for a while.
Morgan, thanks for doing your part with that whole buisiness thing. What kind of buisiness is it?
April 19, 2009 @ 11:12 amPaul,
Sure, we all have a bad side. That didn’t stop you from coming on here and insisting that without the left we’d be living in a totalitarian nightmare right now. Why not say, without evangelicals we’d all be living in a Communist hellhole.
My point is, you don’t seem to be demonstrating a lot of the insight you claim to be promoting. For you, it’s all about protecting the world from us. But that’s not “in-group” thinking? How about a little self-awareness on your part rather than throwing around the comparisons between American conservatives and Nazis right out of the gate.
I’m willing to talk about what could make this a better place, so are most conservatives. Show me an example of what that looks like from the left. Who on the left has been talking about positive solutions in the last six years on Iraq, for instance. Anyone…anyone…?
April 19, 2009 @ 11:41 amI think that you are making attributions. I have already said that if the left took over completely it would lead to totalitarian dictatorship. I VALUE your contribution to the plurality of our society – please don’t get me wrong.
And please don’t think that because I DO value your contribution, that I therefore won’t fight you tooth and nail to promote my own ideology and agenda. In fact it is my patriotic duty to not let you walk all over me – that’s MY contribution, you see.
But a PART of my ideology and agenda is the idea that there are many sides to an issue and they are not necessarily in opposition to each other. After all, the world (or even just a part of the world) is WAY too complicated for a simple worldview (like “liberal” or “conservative”) to accurately represent in totality.
But this appreciation of complexity leads me to adopt a stance where I feel a strong passion to confront certainty when I see it – in myself as well as in others. The reason for this is simple – certainty is almost always an illusion and, if taken to the extreme, it almost always leads to grief.
I see the right as basing morality on authority (the authority of God). This is a worldview that loves certainty (Jesus loves me this I know…). This is a problem. When you “know” the unknowable, it’s not too far to go to do the unthinkable.
Now I realize that the above statement is “fighting words” on a conservative blog – and that is not my intention. Rather I want to illustrate what I feel to be a profound point:
You and I understand and process morality differently. If my studies are correct, we are actually using different brain systems when we do it. In light of this it behooves me to shake things up from time to time. I believe that it benefits both of us to discuss our differences. This is why I get pissed off when I read the whole “look at the bad things they are saying about us” tone of these posts – I think that the whole point of this psychology is to reduce anxiety about your own clay feet and avoid any soul searching.
I do the same thing – that’s why I come here – You provide me the service of a powerful reality check.
April 19, 2009 @ 12:24 pmPaul, I appreciate your last post – it explains a lot. And I’m not saying this to be condescending. My own nature leads me very often to question certainty on the part of others, and myself. I drive my wife crazy with this all the time. However, in spite of this I have certain principles and beliefs that I am not uncertain about at all. This is what signifies something as a “core” principle/belief, is it not? For me this core is not large – it’s very limited in scope actually. But out of this core stems the things we call Hope, Faith, Love…I would see no meaning to life without it.
Not to change the subject, or open up a can of worms here, but out of curiosity how would you analyze and assess the “certainty” amongst Global Warming advocates?
April 19, 2009 @ 2:06 pmIf you were applying this to jihadists, I’d concede your point. Instead, you’re trying to apply it to me, so no I’m not taking that wrap.
I could say the same of your side. You’ve come on here repeating all the leftist tropes about Bush, yet you haven’t defended even one of them beyond the bumper-sticker slogans. I asked you to explain your comment that “Bush lied us into war” and I’m still waiting…
Why don’t you examine your own psychology and show us how it’s done. Why do so many on the left need a boogeyman like Bush or Cheney to get through the day?
April 19, 2009 @ 2:31 pmI love this logic – McVeigh was a vet, therefore we need to watch all vets because they pose the same threat as Muslim extremists. Are you smoking your socks? I know a vet who likes to smoke weed. We better conclude than that all vets are prone to drug abuse. I know a vet who likes fast cars. Should we issue an alert to all police departments to wach out for vets as they drive their vehicles – they may break the speed limit!! This thinking dominates Napolitano – she’s a living brain donor, pure and simple.
April 19, 2009 @ 3:36 pmJim,
The single largest act of domestic terrorism committed in American history was committed by a former veteran, lifelong loner, and frequent critic of what he viewed was a tyrannical and unjust federal government. You wrote about veterans and drug abuse. Ironically enough, veterans across the board are indeed more likely to engage in drug and alcohol abuse than non-veterans. Scores of veterans also suffer from PTSD, which will be a serious consequence of our long-term engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If the government failed to take these considerations into account when they evaluate profiles of potential threats from so-called “right-wing extremists,” then it would do so at its folly.
And no, I don’t “smoke my socks.”
April 19, 2009 @ 6:03 pmWell, it’s science. Which means that it’s not determined as “certain” in the colloquial use of the word – science only offers provisional truth. Global warming is the predominant scientific theory because men and women who stake their careers on the accuracy of their data and their ability to interpret that data have looked at a wide array of phenomena going on and concluded that it is, in fact, occurring.
Good enough for me. I mean – that’s what we hire scientists to do isn’t’ it?
I used to sell computers to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and I got to talk to a couple of the scientists there. They said that the outcome of the studies ALWAYS showed global warming if the study was paid for by government grants, but that the guys who were paid by big oil cooked their studies.
That was 20 years ago.
So what is more likely – that for 20 years government-funded scientists have been promoting a left wing conspiracy (during Reagan, and two Bush administrations no less), or that wealthy corporate interests have conducted “counter studies” that were junk science in order to promote a status-quo friendly propaganda campaign?
Keep in mind that this is EXACTLY the same tactics that the tobacco companies used, and that the only reason they didn’t get away with it was because there were identifiable victims of smoking-related cancer.
Facts don’t lie, but huge buckets of corporate dollars can easily get people to.
Global warming is not a huge issue for me, but you asked what I think about it. So there you go.
This goes to an idea I have been cooking about brain systems: Evidence-based morality Vs Authority-based morality.
But I need to go get a pizza right now. So I’ll come back to that some other time.
April 19, 2009 @ 6:28 pmM.G.,
McVeigh’s training was not related to bomb making. He did not pick up this skill in the Army. So what exactly is the connection to his veteran status that the government is supposed to be watching out for?
April 19, 2009 @ 6:30 pmYeah, John, your’e right – what does the army have to do with a person’s politics. I mean, getting indoctrinated into a militaristic society isn’t going to effect your politics at all.
Who could imagine such a silly idea?
April 19, 2009 @ 6:31 pmPaul,
So let me just make sure I’m understanding you here.
There are 1.4M men and women in the military, plus another 800K+ in the reserves (who also went through basic training and were thus “indoctrinated” into a militaristic society).
On the basis of one individual who attacked a government building out of over two million inductees, you conclude that the Army is at fault.
Is that about it?
April 19, 2009 @ 6:42 pmSee, I knew you would go there.
I said (using sarcasm of course) that it is unreasonable to assume that someone who is indoctrinated into a military society would NOT have it effect their politics. Goodness knows that my years of working in healthcare have effected mine.
What I did not say is that the military is somehow to blame. This conversation has moved from griping about government concern about right-wing extremist groups and has moved to griping about using military service as a factor in profiling.
Many radical right-wing groups are militias. And many of their members have military service history. This is basic profiling practice, is it not?
M. G. said:
I was agreeing with this statement. If you want to make that into an excuse to go off on a “you hate our troops” screed. By all means, knock yourself out.
April 19, 2009 @ 7:01 pmJohn:
The myriad challenges faced by vets upon returning home, combined with their exposure to the harsh realities of armed conflict, means that if you’re looking at so called “right-wing extremists,” veteran status would be relevant for investigative purposes.
April 19, 2009 @ 7:06 pmThe DHS report specifically highlights vets. So from my perspective “griping” about military service as a factor in profiling is part and parcel of the topic.
I have no problem with saying military service might affect someone’s politics. Fine. But you were specifically talking about McVeigh. My point, that military service has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic terror, stands.
April 19, 2009 @ 7:14 pmReally? So why is it that DHS is only able to identify 19 vets who’ve joined hate groups out of millions of vets? You’re just parroting the report. Where is the actual evidence of a connection?
April 19, 2009 @ 7:20 pmJohn:
Come on, you’re a smart guy. You know that for comparison purposes, the relevant number is not simply the total number of vets you’re comparing the 19 vets to, but also the total number of extremists identified. What if they only identified 20 radicals? What would that mean?
I’ve read the report, and I honestly don’t recall the figure of 19 former veterans so I can’t comment further.
April 19, 2009 @ 7:31 pmFrom Powerline:
The Homeland Security report further supports its suspicion of returning veterans by referring to an FBI report released last year:
So, how many are “some”? You can read the FBI report, titled “White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11,” here. Notwithstanding the deliberate vagueness of the Homeland Security document, the FBI was actually very specific:
There you have it: a whopping 19 actual or alleged veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan have joined the “extremist movement.” (The FBI notes that some of these “may have inflated their resumes with fictional military experience to impress others within the movement.”)
[End excerpt]
April 19, 2009 @ 8:28 pmJohn:
You wouldn’t actually argue that 9% of Americans have service experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, would you?
This is getting a little silly.
April 19, 2009 @ 8:46 pmI never said that and neither did the author at Powerline:
Using either number, the DHS report is making an absurd and I think purposefully vague claim.
April 19, 2009 @ 8:53 pmJohn, you’re up to your old tricks of using facts while speaking to liberals. They’ll never get it. In their mind, going after vets is a legit venture (probably a hostility to our military is behind this). I’m sure this is what motivates Napolitano. So 19 people out of close to 29 million and these folks are right up there with Muslim extremists? Someones smoking their socks here.
April 19, 2009 @ 9:20 pmLet me make this really, really simple for everyone involved.
What percentage of Muslim men ages 18-34 does anyone here think have engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States?
It’s probably a pretty small percentage.
And yet when evaluating potential threats against the United States, the question of whether a particular individual is a Muslim man aged 18-34, I think, is pertinent information.
On a much smaller scale, I also think that when evaluating the threat of domestic terrorism, the question of whether someone has prior military experience is relevant as well.
That, of course, has NOTHING to do with the well-documented fact that a VAST MAJORITY of vets have served their country with distinction, and remain men and women of completely integrity to this day.
This is, in my opinion, a modest claim.
Jim:
I’m not a liberal. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I mostly think that everything you write is silly, shallow, and a disservice to conservatives. Liberals deserve a better foil than the tripe you throw up here on a regular basis.
April 19, 2009 @ 9:41 pmMG,
It’s a fair point. I’m just saying that the percentages are a bit different when it comes to Muslim men. Off the top of my head I seem to recall that a survey in England found something like 9% of Muslims believed terror was acceptable against the UK. And those are just the people who admitted it. That’s a more significant number of people than 19 over 7 years.
April 19, 2009 @ 11:09 pmM.G. – I’m delighted that my postings here irritate you. I’ll try to keep up the good work.
April 20, 2009 @ 8:26 am