"Joe Stack is already a hero to the right-wing tea party movement"

By GottaLaff

The destruction of the IRS office in Austin, Texas, has made suicidal pilot Joe Stack a hero to right wing extremists in the "patriot" movement.

(Maxx Scholten/The Daily Texan/AP Photo)

Via the L.A. Times, two letters to the editor:

Re “Flight of fury,” Feb. 19

Joe Stack is already a hero to the right-wing "tea party" movement.

It is strange that the young man who was arrested on Christmas Day for his pitiful attempt to bring down a passenger plane was immediately labeled a terrorist. But now, listening to talk radio, the right-wing media are in spin mode and are proclaiming this loser a hero. These Kool-Aid merchants are saying that Stack speaks for the average American. But what would these same merchants say if he'd had a Muslim surname?

Stack may have had some legitimate complaints, but he went about it the wrong way. My prayers go out to his family and to the victims that were harmed.

****

In one stroke, Stack has shown how impossible it is to win a "war on terror."

The Tea Tantrumers never fail to demonstrate that their so-called "adherence" to the Constitution and American values is an industrial size pooper scooper of bull pucky.

Preventing every terrorist attack is unattainable goal

By GottaLaff

I used to have a chemistry teacher whose mantra was "It's all relative." He said it incessantly. We all hated it, but that didn't make it any less true. It's always good to look at the big picture and try to put things in perspective.

It's unspeakably horrific when people die due to some deranged extremist who thinks his reward will be a bunch of beckoning virgins in the sky, but sadly, we can't stop them all with Peeping Tom imaging machines:

[T]he truth is that there is no absolute security -- short of conceding victory to the terrorists by making it impossible for foreigners to visit the U.S., hellish for Americans to fly and difficult for all to live normal lives. [...]

The Christmas Day episode highlights three critical points.

First is how much progress U.S. intelligence has made. The 9/11 attacks were blamed on a failure to "connect the dots." [...]

Simply singling him out for a body search might have done the job. The intelligence community certainly failed to connect the dots, but at least this time it had the dots.

Second, the Christmas Day plot demonstrates that much of what passes for security is a waste of time and money. [...]

Finding the right balance is terribly difficult, but what's needed is less mass screening of all those proverbial grandmothers. [...]

Rather, what we need is more screening and profiling based on intelligence to provide grounds for suspicion (which should have included the would-be Detroit bomber) or on suspicious behavior (like having no luggage or paying cash for the ticket).

Third, the public furor over the foiled plot shows that more perspective on terrorism is essential. Terrorism frightens Americans because it seems so random. But it does not kill many. [...]

Some honest talk would be useful, so that when the next major attack comes -- as it surely will -- we can respond rationally and not just emotionally. [...]

When it comes to weathering terror attacks, the reaction of Israelis is instructive. After every bombing, they clean up as fast as possible. Thus, life can go on and the terrorists won't be given a victory. By contrast, Americans let fear of terrorism stop life. So the terrorists win.

Interesting take.

Pete King's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Memory

By GottaLaff

By saying that Peter King has a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad memory, I'm being kind in a euphemistic kind of way. What I really meant to say is that he outright lied. (Here's a video of his punditiocy that Paddy posted earlier.)

Just now on CNN, Petey said that the ObamAdministration banned the word "terrorism", which is, of course, why Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab managed to smuggle explosives on board a jetliner.

Lose a word, gain a terrorist. See the logic?

Me neither.

No, Obama never eliminated the word "terrorism" from the government lexicon. It was the phrase "war on terror", one of the stupidest phrases ever concocted by any administration ever. That's why this administration is using different words. President Obama, rightfully, wouldn't want any association whatsoever with BushCoSpeak.

See? Some there is some change we can believe in.

So hey, Bogus Petey, check this out. It may jog your "memory":

"War on Terror" is a phrase that President Barack Obama is removing from his lexicon, after seven years of war-on-terror declarations by George W. Bush. Less than two weeks into his administration, reporters and pundits are starting to notice that Obama employs other phrases, such as "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." [...]

This doesn't mean Obama is going soft. He frequently refers to terrorists as "extremists," criminals whom the United States will "go after" in order to "win this fight."

Analysts are suggesting various reasons why "war on terror" is on the way out. One is that "terror" is not the name of a country or group. Another is that Obama wants to avoid labeling all Muslims or Arabs as terrorists.

Just keep flapping those distorting, cock-and-bull, deceptive, Rushpublic dirtbag lips, Representative King.

Representative. Right. Of what? Smears? Propaganda?

Yet CNN considers him to be a reliable source and valuable contributor. He and Fran Townsend have been their go-to commentators during this entire "bomber" story. And critics say blogs are inaccurate.

Video- Kilmeade: Muslims "have to understand" being profiled because of "the war that was declared on us"

Bush appointees buck Obama's executive authority

By GottaLaff

Where were they when Boy Georgie was swaggering around with his red holster and spinning his little pretend pearl-handled six-guns?

President Barack Obama’s claims of broad executive authority to carry out the war on terror are drawing fire from an unexpected source: federal judges nominated by President George W. Bush, who asserted the sweeping powers in the first place.

In recent weeks, three different Bush appointees considering cases relating to war-on-terror detainees have rejected arguments from Obama’s Justice Department, which adopted virtually unchanged the positions the Bush administration had staked out.

In each case, the Bush-appointed judge said the executive branch was overstepping its authority and claiming more powers than the law allowed.

“It took a while for the courts to turn on George Bush. Obama’s not getting that same period,” said Jonathan Turley, a liberal legal analyst at The George Washington University. “The fact that these are Republican appointees tends to add an exclamation point to their decisions.”

“Even Republican judges are seeing through the arguments and the idea that the war on terror justified depriving prisoners of constitutional protections,” said Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civl Liberties Union.[...]

For seven years, the Bush administration, in tandem with Congress, were able to stop any judge from actually looking at the evidence” in detainee cases, Hafetz said. “They’re finding that the emperor has no clothes and the detentions lack evidentiary support.”[...]

Even after the stinging defeats, the Obama Justice Department is continuing to fight at least two of the rulings. Government lawyers requested and received a stay of Bates’s decision on habeas rights at Bagram.

H/t: Cody

Dick Cheney's New War... On Semantics

By GottaLaff

Liveblog:

The War on Terror is over! The Nation of Dick is telling us it is now called ::fanfare:: The War on Semantics. And telling us, and telling us, and telling us...

Shorter Obama: Clarity, rationale, information, reassurance, U.S. Constitution in tact, balance of power, torture is obsolete, and the last eight years were an epic fail.

The Nation of Dick started with a joke about Obama's being long-winded, yet he droned on endlessly. He went on to say what a lightweight Obama is, yet somehow felt it necessary to share his resume with us. Yes, the former Vice President of the United States felt compelled to remind us of who he thinks he was.

He then told us that as long as things go his way, he'll praise President Obama, but when they don't, he will publicly rip him to shreds.

By the way, he needs a teleprompter. His notes just didn't cut it.

Pat Buchanan is calling him "the leader of a tough line". He's got a shiver going up his leg.

Lawrence O'Donnell summed the speech up with words like "sleazy" and "lies."

Buchanan: Lawrence's reaction proves Cheney's speech worked.

The gist of The Nation of Dick's speech: 9/11fearjustificationoftorture 9/11fearjustficationoftorture.

The Nation of Dick went on to say that people say 9/11 changed him. He says he wasn't changed. He's still the Dick we all remember. But 9/11 simply made him a Dick committed to torture.

He reminded us that the N.Y. Times is our enemy and pals around with Al Qaeda.

He's all for torture. Torture is cool. He really digs it.

Oh, and Obama's a liar. The torture memos were redacted, so only half of the content was released. The part we didn't see is that torture rocks.

He was clearly worried about being prosecuted. The lefties call him a criminal! Obama shouldn't prosecute him for torturing, because torture works. He kept secrets, and secrets are cool.

Hey, he only waterboarded 3 people! The legal memos that he ordered make that okay!

Overwrought, contrived indignation, and phony moralizing over 3 lousy tortured brown people? So what's the problem? Stop libeling torturers!

Red alert! Obama is letting half of the nuclear-armed terrorists loose on the U.S.! Be afraid!

He misses the phrase War on Terror. He misses the phrase Enemy Combatant. He misses Gitmo! Services will be held shortly.

This is clearly no time for compromise, as Obama suggested. This is no time for rational thought, for the rule of law!

Fear. 9/11. Terrorism. FEAR.

The War on Semantics is upon us. Bring it on.

GOP Poll Shows Democrats With Key Advantages

Schadenfruede. And how delicious is it that we are tied with Republicans on the terror things? Via Taegan-

The AP obtained partial results from a GOP poll that showed Republicans "are widely viewed by the public as less competent than Democrats to handle issue ranging from health care to education and energy."

"Democrats were favored by a margin of 61% to 29% on education; 59% to 30% on health care and 59% to 31% on energy. Congress is expected to consider major legislation later this year in all three areas."

"Democats were also viewed with more confidence in handling taxes, long a Republican strong suit. The only issue among nine in the survey where the two parties were rated as even was in the war on terror."

The results were presented to top GOP officials in Congress.

New GOP logo via GOS.

O.C.O. is the new War on Terrorism

By GottaLaff

Per Rachel Maddow just now:

No more "War on Terror(ism)". There is a brand new term. It is now called, per the official announcement from the Obama administration:

Overseas contingency operation

Rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?

Note: I just noticed this never got posted, and remained as a "draft". I could have sworn I put this up last night; hence, the "just now" after Rachel's name.

Poll- Public more confident in Obama's war on terror than with Bush's

This is astounding. I'm sure they're having to up George's quota of "medicinal alcohol" over this.

• 62: Percent of likely voters think the U.S. and its allies are winning the war on terrorism, the highest level in five years
• 47: Percent who thought the U.S. and its allies were winning a month ago
• 54: Percent of voters think the U.S. is safer today than before Sept. 11, 2001, the highest level of confidence ever found
• 42: Percent of voters view Obama's performance on Iraq as good or excellent
• 34: Final percent of voters who rated Bush's performance on Iraq as good or excellent

Sources: Rasmussen

Obama making U.S. less safe, Cheney says

By GottaLaff

(this should say "worst", but I had no time to edit)

Because Cheney has so much credibility, let's take everything he says extra seriously, starting with this: The terrorists are gonna get us, because President Obama is weak and wants to help them get us, so they're gonna get us!

The Obama administration's new policies on Guantanamo Bay prison and the treatment of detainees makes it more likely a terrorist attack against the United States will succeed, former Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday.

In an interview with Politico, the former vice president issued a stringent defense of the Bush administration's record on the war on terror, and said he worries the President Obama has already made the country more vulnerable.

But Bush and the Nation of Dick didn't. Nah. Let's count the ways they didn't make us more vulnerable: On their watch, we were attacked. On their watch, we tortured innocent people. On their watch, we couldn't obtain vital information, because torture produces lies. On their watch, we our economy tanked. On their watch, we shredded the Constitution. On their watch, we lost credibility with the entire world. Yeah, right, and it's Obama's who's going to get us killed.

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said in the interview published Wednesday.

That old talking point? Again? Really?

Cheney also predicted the Obama administration is likely to backtrack on its pledge to end coercive interrogation techniques, since the protection of the United States from terrorists is a "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business.”

"These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek," he said.

Evildoers. Fear. Noun, verb, 9/11. Here's an idea, Dick: Go Cheney yourself.

In the interview, Cheney suggested Obama was irresponsibly adhering to “campaign rhetoric,” and called Guantanamo Bay a “first-class program.”

If that's "first class", I'd hate to see coach.

Buh-Bye "War on Terror"

By GottaLaff

I've always hated the phrase "war on terror", mainly because declaring war on a tactic is so inanely typical of Bush that I respond to it the way I respond to fingernails on a blackboard... or Sarah Palin's voice. Plus, it's meaningless as well as provocative-- a euphemism for anti-Islam.

And no matter what the label, terrorism (that's the correct word, Georgie) will never go away, so of course, Bush's "war" would be a perpetual one:

The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words.

The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.

Since taking office less than two weeks ago, President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." Another time it was an "ongoing struggle."

He has pledged to "go after" extremists and "win this fight." There even was an oblique reference to a "twilight struggle" as the U.S. relentlessly pursues those who threaten the country. [...]

Ultimately and perhaps inadvertently, however, the phrase "became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Now, he said, there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups — ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.

The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."

Wayne Fields, professor of English and American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis, and an expert on presidential rhetoric:=

"One of the contrasts between the two administrations is the care with which Obama uses language. He thinks about the subtle implications" [...]

"Obama, he said, understands that language and conversation must be worked at and that it's "not just a series of sound bites."

White House officials say there has been no deliberate ban on the war-on-terror phrase. And it hasn't completely disappeared. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has used the wording in briefings, and it's still in vogue among some in the Pentagon and State Department.

Recently, words like "subtle" and "nuance" were not words Americans associated with strong leadership. Looks like we have one more example of real change, courtesy of President Obama.

FOX News Spells Out U.S. Strategy For Spotting Terrorists In Pakistan

May I just say, given the opportunity, I'd drop one of those things in my psycho neighbors' house in a heartbeat. Nope, no possibility of misuse here.

Obama's Big Fat Problems

By GottaLaff

This is what is facing President Obama:

TALKING TO IRAN

LEAVING IRAQ

The

WAR ON TERROR

NEW COLD WAR

FINANCIAL MELTDOWN

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Health care, the environment, energy, the Congo, Darfur, North Korea, Burma...

This is who we will need to deal with all of that:

"We have entered an era of persistent conflict."

By GottaLaff

Oy:

ANALYSIS: The US military sees the next 30 to 40 years as involving a state of continuous war against ideologically-motivated terrorists and competing with Russia and China for natural resources and markets [...]

In January, the next president of the United States will conclude America's timetable for withdrawal in final negotiations with the Iraqi government.

Further evidence of America's future military intentions is contained in recently published strategy documents issued by the US military.

Under the auspices of the US department of defence and department of the army, the US military have just published a document entitled 2008 Army Modernization Strategy which makes for interesting reading against the current backdrop of deteriorating international fiscal, environmental, energy resource and security crises.

The 2008 modernisation strategy, written by Lieut Gen Stephen Speakes, deputy chief of staff of the US army, contains the first explicit and official acknowledgement that the US military is dangerously overstretched internationally. It states simply: "The army is engaged in the third-longest war in our nation's history and . . . the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has caused the army to become out of balance with the demand for forces exceeding the sustainable supply."

Against this backdrop, the 90 page document sets out the future of international conflict for the next 30 to 40 years - as the US military sees it - and outlines the manner in which the military will sustain its current operations and prepare and "transform" itself for future "persistent" warfare. In its preamble, it predicts a post cold war future of "perpetual warfare".

Just thought I'd brighten your day.

H/t: CLG

Seize and desist

By GottaLaff

The National Security Candidate, you know, the one who mirrors George W. Where'sBinLaden, might want to explain this:

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) on Tuesday said that the U.S. is not doing enough to make sure funds sent to Pakistan to help that country fight terrorism are actually used for that purpose.

“Our assessment found that while [Coalition Support Funds (CSF)] played a key role in Pakistan’s support for our war on terror, [the Department of Defense] had not followed its existing guidance and provided little oversight of the effort at the embassy in Pakistan,” the GAO found.

“As a result, we conclude that Defense cannot accurately determine how much of the $5.56 billion in costs reimbursed to Pakistan since 2001 were actually incurred,” the report stated.

Democrats seized on the findings.

Indeed we did. Seizing is one of our strong points. Why, here's a seizer now! Sid Seizer? No-o, you wacky people! Seizer Chavez? Don't be silly. Seizer salad? Now you're talking:

“It seems as though the Pakistani military went on a spending spree with American taxpayers’ wallets and no one bothered to investigate the charges. To this day we do not have proper verification for how our money was used,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Seizer Menendez? You're getting warm:

Added Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.): “Apparently, the Bush administration cares so little about the hunt for Osama bin Laden that it is barely paying attention to how the Pakistani military is carrying out the fight. It’s dangerous to treat the battle against al Qaeda so casually, and it’s unfair to American taxpayers to be so careless with billions of their dollars.”

I don't see any indignant quotes from John Sidney McBush, do you?

US accused of holding terror suspects on prison ships

By Paddy




Go read the whole thing. Impeachment, war crimes trials, all that sh** is too good for these people. I'm surprised they're not sending these "detainees" up in the space shuttle... or are they?

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

(snip)

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's legal director, said: "They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons,** and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them."

Twenty six THOUSAND people? By the U.S.'s own admission?