Romney continues sinking into Libyan morass....

In one sense, this is getting painful to watch. In another sense, I'm happy to see the Romney campaign continue to sink into their own incompetence. Yes, it is another story about the Libyan terrorist attacks, and Mitt Romney's flailing attempts to capitalize on them. Let's go to Talking Points Memo:
 

The Romney campaign continues to defend its increasingly isolated response to the Libya consulate attack, claiming that the White House implicitly acknowledged its criticism was accurate by disavowing an earlier statement from the U.S. embassy in Egypt.

“If Gov. Romney ‘jumped the gun’ why were White House officials also distancing themselves from the statement?” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “Why didn’t President Obama take any questions from the press this morning to explain?”

Saul was referring to a statement released Tuesday by the U.S. embassy in Cairo, which said that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” The White House later disavowed that press release and subsequent tweets from the embassy’s Twitter account that referred to it were deleted.

Here’s the problem: The fallout over Romney’s reaction has much less to do with the content of the initial embassy statement and a lot more to do with the timing of what unfolded Tuesday night. The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement Tuesday night that “the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Romney tried to get around this blatant contradiction Wednesday by saying he was referring to tweets by the embassy affirmed their initial statement after the Egypt protest got out of hand (but well before the Libya murders). But even those tweets actually included a condemnation of the embassy breach as well. Either way, it takes a pretty massive leap to get from ambiguous tweets by besieged social media outreach staff member at an embassy in Egypt to claiming the White House itself reacted to the death of Americans in Libya by expressing sympathy for militants.

In fact, the first reactions from the State Department and White House were strong condemnations.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” said a statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued Tuesday evening. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

That reaction did not satisfy Romney, either: He said the administration’s decision to break from the embassy’s statement and take a harsher tone constituted “mixed signals.”

Romney could still be upset that the US condemned an anti-Muslim film promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones. And indeed, many critics have bristled at the idea that America should have to account for an individual citizen’s speech abroad.

But according to talking points from the Romney campaign obtained by CNN, Romney’s surrogates have been instructed to condemn Jones using language nearly identical to Clinton’s:

- Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance. - But we will not apologize for our constitutional right to freedom of speech.
- Storming U.S. missions and committing acts of violence is never acceptable, no matter the reason. Any response that does not immediately and decisively make that clear conveys weakness.
- If pressed: Governor Romney repudiated this individual in 2010 when he attempted to mobilize a Quran-burning movement. He is firmly against any expression of religious hatred or intolerance.

The Romney campaign’s latest attempt to clean up their Tuesday attack ignores the reasons it generated so much backlash to begin with, without providing any new explanation as to why it attacked the White House so quickly and fiercely before all of the facts surrounding the attacks were clear.

What I find so very interesting is not the simple fact that the Romney campaign screwed up with the actual timeline of events, when they initiated this attack against the Obama administration.  Instead we have a campaign that now, in the face of overwhelming evidence which shows the Romney campaign to be completely wrong in conducting their baseless attacks, that the campaign continues presenting these discredited talking points--even as they are repeatedly told how wrong they are. My impression is that the Romney campaign has passed a point of no return in what could be an eventual loss of the presidency for Romney.  If the campaign admits that they were mistaken in their attack against President Obama, then Mitt Romney can kiss his Oval Office dreams goodbye.  This was the big, foreign policy crisis for the campaign to show the American people how a business leader could handle such a crisis better than President Obama.  Instead, Mitt Romney stepped into it big time.  If Romney admitted to stepping into it big time, then why would the American public want to select him, over Obama--who has already demonstrated his own foreign policy skills.  And I'm not talking about this crisis--remember Osama bin Laden? He's rotting away with the fishies. 

So the Romney campaign really has no choice, but to continue to defend their response to the Libyan attacks.  They could try to ignore the issue, however I'm guessing the media and blogs will continue raising questions regarding the campaign's response and why?  The Romney campaign could try to deflect the issue, but that may cause a campaign spokesperson to misquote, or misinterpret a campaign talking point, resulting in more questions of why are they spinning and contradicting themselves again and again?  Neither ignoring, nor deflecting the issue will help the Romney campaign, as it could seed even more doubts among independent and swing voters.  So the only choice is to triple down, and continue to defend their talking points, even though everyone is now realizing that the Romney campaign is blatantly lying.  The more they defend their position, the more the Romney campaign continues to lie, and the more Mitt Romney appears weak, and incompetent in running for the White House.  In the end, Mitt Romney is sinking deeper in a morass of his own incompetence.  Will it be enough to sink his presidential campaign in November?

And as for President Obama not taking questions from the press to explain the issue?  It is obvious that the press were going to ask Obama questions about Romney's statement, saying Obama "sympathized" with the terrorists?  The last thing Obama wanted to do was get into a political pissing match with Romney as the crisis was unfolding throughout the morning.  By not talking to the press, Obama's statement on the crisis looks "presidential" for the evening news.

President Obama responds to Mitt Romney on Libyan terrorist attacks

Now President Barack Obama has responded to Mitt Romney's attacks against him, regarding the Libyan terrorist crisis. Per Talking Points Memo:

 "There's a broader lesson to be learned here: Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later and as president one of the things I've learned is you can't do that," Obama told CBS News Wednesday."It's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

Here is the video:


Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later....OUCH!!!

Mitt Romney's fallout on Libyan terrorist attack continues

The fallout from Mitt Romney's disastrous political attack against the Obama administration over the events happening in Libya just continues on.

First up, is a small error on the part of the Romney campaign staff.  According to Americablog, the Romney campaign issued a press release on Mitt Romney's statement regarding the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt and U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Within the statement, the word "embassy" was used three times--especially with the phrase "the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya."  The capitol of Libya is actually Tripoli, where the U.S. embassy is located.  The terrorist attacks took place at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.  According to John Aravosis, "Any first year international relations student knows that our diplomatic offices in the capital are "embassies," and our offices in cities that are not the capital are "consulates."  Mitt Romney never caught the error.  He just simply read through the statement:



I went back into my previous post, and I also made the mistake as well.   It is a dumb mistake that possibly any ordinary American can make.  However, I am a small blogger, and I am not running for the Oval Office--Mitt Romney is running.  I can probably understand Mitt Romney not knowing the difference, or even caring about the difference, and just reading through the script.  But I would expect that someone on the Romney campaign staff would know the difference, and make sure that the correction was made.  Did any Romney campaign staffer with foreign policy experience, or credentials, even proofread the statement?  Is there even anyone on the Romney campaign that even has foreign policy knowledge or experience?  Or do the top Romney foreign policy advisers feel it is demeaning for them to proofread  press releases in the wake of an American foreign policy crisis?   Because if you think about it, this is a crisis that a president will be confronted with, and the Romney campaign is showing just how screwed up they are in dealing with this crisis.  You can also bet that the Obama campaign is not making such a juvenile mistake as we're seeing with Mitt Romney.  So this dumb mistake really shows an incredible level of incompetence that Mitt Romney has in running his own presidential campaign.  Do we really want this level of incompetence in the White House?

However, there is an even worst fallout from the Romney campaign that has taken place in the wake of this crisis.  Throughout his press conference, Mitt Romney had the unfortunate habit of smirking.  Daily Kos' Jed Lewison caught these smirks here, here, and here, while Americablog's John Aravosis catalogs 15 different images of Mitt Romney's smirks.  Here are a couple of photos for your viewing pleasure:

Finally, here is a photo of Mitt Romney walking away from the podium, after his press conference, with another smirk.  This photo was taken by Associated Press photographer Charles Dharapak:

I can not say if Mitt Romney's smirks are an emotional response to this crisis, or are the smirks an unconscious tick that Romney has when speaking before a group?  Is Mitt Romney happy that this crisis presented him with an opportunity to crassly attack President Obama as sympathizing with the terrorists?  Or is this just his speaking style?  In one sense, it does not matter--A smirking photo is worth more than a thousand-word political spin.  American moderates and independents will be watching the news of this crisis on TV at 6pm.  They are going to see both President Obama and Mitt Romney, making their statements on the attacks.  They are going to see the smirk.  Perhaps in the back of their mind, these moderates and independents may wonder if Mitt Romney cares that four Americans died in the wake of these attacks.  Will they see Romney as a callous, uncaring individual who has no morals, other than his crass, political desire to win the presidency and gain political power?  Again, is this the kind of individual you want in the Oval Office--especially when he get the 3am wake-up call?

Mitt Romney blasts Obama, claims Obama "sympathize" with terrorists attacking U.S. consulate in Libya

Last night, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the U.S. ambassador and three other American embassy workers in the process.  The attack was heinous, of course, but that is not what really surprised me here.  What really surprised me was GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's initial response to the terrorist attacks:

 “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

 This really goes beyond a WTF moment.  Read the statement again.  Mitt Romney is not just attacking President Obama for cheap political brownie points, but is making the claim that President Obama is sympathizing with the terrorists who attacked and killed a U.S. ambassador, and three American embassy workers.  President Obama is siding with the terrorists, against U.S. foreign policy interests, and against his own country?  Is that what Mittens is actually saying?

Now there is a back story, where before the attacks took place, the U.S embassy in Egypt issued a statement that “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”  This statement was released before protests took place against the U.S. embassy in Cairo, over a movie "Innocence of Muslims," which shows the Prophet Muhammad as a homosexual son, advocating child slavery, and engaging in extramarital sex. The movie was directed and produced by an Israeli-American real-estate developer, Sam Bacile, and promoted by  Florida pastor Terry Jones, who generated his own controversy by burning the Koran.  The Cairo protests also took place on Tuesday night, before the terrorist attack in Libya.  So a U.S. embassy official in Egypt issues a statement condemning the release of this movie by Bacile, and promoted by Jones, which insults and angers Muslim citizens in the Middle East.  Muslim citizens protest against the movie, terrorists attack the U.S. embassy consulate in Libya, and Mittens Romney attacks Obama for sympathizing with the terrorists over a second-rate PR statement which some embassy staffer wrote before any of these protests and attacks even took place?  Ironically, an administration official told Politico that, "The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government." Oops.

I will admit that the back story of the Cairo statement, in relation with the protests and the terrorist attack in Libya is bad enough.  It is a foreign policy screw-up within the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Egypt.  But the real clusterfrack was the Romney campaign's response to this mess.  After learning of the terrorist attacks, the Romney campaign decided to use this statement as an official Obama administration response to the attacks, and state that President Obama's sympathies were with the terrorists, over that of the Americans killed in the attacks.  They got the timeline completely wrong.  Even worst, instead of taking some time to gather information on what happened in the Middle East, Mitt Romney impulsively rushes headlong into sticking more than his foot in his mouth--he stuck his foot, his ankle, his leg, and his ass way into his mouth here!  This is not the kind of president you want to have woken up at 3am in the midst of a crisis.

Of course, now the story is getting better.  According to Talking Points Memo:

Some moments show you when a candidate is ready or not to become President of the United States. I suspect last night will become one of those moments for Mitt Romney. The verdict will not be positive.

As I noted last night, when the full scale of the events in Cairo and Benghazi remained unknown, the Romney campaign let fly a crude political attack both blaming the Obama administration for the attacks and suggesting that the President actually sympathized with them. This was after it was known that an as yet-unnamed Foreign Service Officer (later identified as Sean Smith) had died....

This was followed shortly by another attack from one of Romney’s prime surrogates, RNC Chair Reince Priebus, explicitly accusing the President of sympathizing with the attackers.
Romney’s attack was not only ill-judged and ill-timed, it was actually based on what appears to be a demonstrable falsehood. Romney, or folks writing in his name at his campaign, claimed that the administration’s first response to the attacks was to issue a press release condemning the anti-Islam film which had helped trigger the attack. This they picked wholesale from the right-wing blogosphere.

In fact, according to all available press reports and the account of the State Department, the press release in question came from the US Embassy in Egypt and preceded the attacks. So to claim it was a response to the attacks was simply false. So while American diplomats were dying in the field, Romney pops up with an egregious attempt to politicize the deaths with a flat out lie.

Behind the curtains a more chaotic and rash picture emerges.

The statement from the Romney campaign was initially released by Romney press secretary Andrea Saul at 10:09 PM — but under an embargo until midnight on September 12th. In other words, it was embargoed until September 11th was over.

Then a few minutes later at 10:24 PM the embargo was lifted and reporters were told they could use the statement immediately. There was no clear explanation of the change.
Bear in mind, this was all happening while attacks on US personnel abroad were ongoing.

According to a statement released this morning by the White House, the President was told last night that Ambassador Chris Stevens was unaccounted for. Only this morning did he learn that Stevens had died in the attacks that were on-going last night.

The campaign also authorized Romney’s top foreign policy advisor to give a blistering interview attacking the president while the attacks were continuing.

So apparently the Romney campaign had set up a GOP-coordinated plan to slam President Obama on the terrorist attacks in Libya, to take place after September 11th memorial events of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks.   If this is accurate, then the entire Romney campaign can be considered incompetent for developing a crass, political attack that is not only based on a faulty timeline, but that they planned to engage in after September 11th.

What is even more ironic is that other GOP leaders are shying away from criticizing President Obama in the wake of the events unfolding in Libya.

President Obama's response to the Libyan terrorist attacks can be found here.

If King George will not listen....Does that mean Erick Erickson is advocating armed insurrection by right wing crazies?

I'm not even sure how I found this Red State blog post by Erick Erickson, but I'm just amazed at how wacked out it is. The post that Erick Erickson wrote is titled "If King George Will Not Listen...."

This is one of those posts that has to be written and has to be said, though I know going in to it I’m going to get beaten up from all sides, though especially from a left particularly out to get me right now.

Nonetheless, this must be said.

The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. They are neither helpful to those seeking repeal nor the acts of a civilized society. I comfortably say I speak for all the front page posters here condemning the violence and threats. The people who think this country has descended into the darkness do in fact send us down a dark path themselves with these actions.

Clear? Good.

Here comes the controversial part that still must be said: I have heard the audio of some of the threats. I get worse stuff routinely. Rush Limbaugh gets worse stuff on a daily basis. Republican members of Congress have gotten similar and worse stuff. Thank God this wasn’t a free trade vote or a variety of left wing groups would have half the country in flames right now. I do believe the 24 hours of threats, many of which were pretty weak, has gotten more national coverage than the leftist anarchists in Texas who molotov cocktailed the Texas Governor’s Mansion — for which arrests have never been made.

First I want to say that Erickson starts his post condemning threats and violence--The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. Erickson even claims that not only does he receive "worse stuff routinely," but that threats are sent to Rush Limbaugh and Republican congress members. And they are supposed to be worst than the threats that the Democrats have received. Of course, Erickson doesn't bother backing up his claims of threats by making public either the email threats, the phone voice mail threats, or both. I doubt that Erickson has bothered to send his threats to law enforcement for investigation. Of course, as Erickson is condemning these threats, he then criticizes Democrats for "running to the nearest microphone in an effort to play the victim and generate sympathy as they try to steer poll numbers back in their direction." Erickson even claims that the protesters "yelling racial epithets at Congressman Lewis" did not happen, since Erickson confirmed from reporters that the events didn't occur.

I wonder which reporters Erickson was talking to? Consider that these papers:

The Washington Post; 'Tea party' protesters accused of spitting on lawmaker, using slurs

The Hill.com; CBC member: Health bill protesters called lawmakers the N-word

Huffington Post; Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

McClatchy News; Tea party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman

CBS News; Rep.: Protesters Yelled Racial Slurs

And Fox News (Although Fox calls it an allegation); Black Lawmakers Allege Health Care Protesters Hollered Racial Epithets at Them

Finally, The Washington Times is the only news organization, that I could find, which disputes Congressman Lewis' claim of protesters hurling racial slurs at him. The Washington Times includes this YouTube video to support its dispute, but it is rather difficult to hear anything over the chants "Kill the bill," and boos. The comments in this YouTube video claim they hear the N-word between 41-45 seconds. I've listened to the video numerous times, especially between the 41-45 seconds, and I can't pick up the racial slur. However, there are several commentators in the Washington Times article that also claim to hear the N-word at around 41-43 seconds. The YouTube video ends at 48 seconds, so I really don't know if the slurs were said after the video ended.

So I'm starting to wonder if Erickson's "reporters" were from either Fox News, or the Washington Times--both are very conservative news organizations. Fox News is considered the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and the Washington Times is Moonie newspaper.

But that is not the real kicker in Erickson's post. Erickson continues saying that "a great many Americans who truly believe the Democrats shredded the constitution on Sunday night," after the House passed the health care reform bill without a single Republican vote. Erickson claims that Democrats pushed the bill through the House "before congressmen could go home and face their angry constituents every poll showed were opposed to this legislation." Of course, Erickson has forgotten all the town hall meetings that congressmen faced, with conservative groups packing town halls of Democratic lawmakers with protesters against health care reform last year. While Erickson claims that the opinion polls show a majority of Americans were opposed to the health care legislation, he's probably cherry-picking the poll numbers to support his claim. I look at the poll numbers at PollingReport.com on health care reform, and the basic question of "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care," does show a majority of Americans disapproving by around 3-5 percentage points. Then again, a majority of American trust President Obama in handling the health care changes over the Republican congress. It is a matter of how the question are phrased in these polls to elicit specific responses on the health care issue. That makes it easy to cherry-pick whatever poll number you want to support or defend health care. I would say that Americans are very divided on the issue of health care, and will need time to digest this law, and determine whether they are for or against it.

But this part of the blog post is where Erickson enters the Crazyland:

I’ve said for weeks I was a bit fearful of what would happen as a result. I sincerely pray we are not on the cusp of some group of angry and now unhinged mob lashing out at congressmen for a vote in the Congress. But something seems to be brewing and I frankly don’t think the Democrats should at all be surprised. They were and they knew they were playing with fire to advance legislation many Americans see as the undoing of the American Experiment. Some of those Americans will now conclude that, like with the founders, if King George will not listen, King George must be fought. [Emphasis is mine.]

Acts of violence against congressmen for behaving as congressmen are wholly inexcusable. We should be vigilant to police our own side because as we’re already seeing through a series of breathless and inaccurate reports, the press and Democrats are going to be quick to run most any story and the retraction will never be as significant as the initial report.

But let’s not act surprised. The only people surprised by the rage are the ones who refused to venture outside Washington to understand first hand what the voters were actually thinking before congressmen voted.

Frankly, after all the leadership threats and bullying against swing Democrats to vote for leadership, I think it is a bit ironic Democratic leaders are now decrying threats and bullying of swing state Democrats by their constituents who very clearly did not want them to vote as they did. [Emphasis is mine.]

They were and they knew they were playing with fire to advance legislation many Americans see as the undoing of the American Experiment. Some of those Americans will now conclude that, like with the founders, if King George will not listen, King George must be fought. Erickson is trying to draw a parallel between the issues of the health care debate of today with the issues of the American Revolution, 200 years ago. It is even more surprising how Erickson equates President Obama as King George III, while the Tea Party activists(?) or right-wing extremists(?) take on the role of the American colonists. During the time leading up to the American Revolution, the American colonists believed that the British government were imposing incendiary legislation against them--mainly taxes, the Navigation Acts, the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, the Intolerable Acts, and such. The American colonists complained to the British government, saying that they lacked direct representation in the British Parliament, thus denying their rights as Englishmen. Therefore, the laws the British Parliament imposed on the American colonies were unconstitutional. This was especially so on the taxes that the British Parliament imposed on the colonies, thus giving us the phrase "no taxation without representation." When push came to shove, the American colonies declared their independence, fought the American Revolutionary War, and gained their independence to become the United States.

Erickson turns the entire American Revolution into an enormous, misleading lie to fit into the right-wing rhetoric.

First is this absurd idea of comparing President Obama as King George III, and by extension, the Democratic Congress as the British Parliament. The crux of Erickson's argument is that both President Obama and the Democratic Congress is imposing this health care legislation down Republican constituents throats, without providing listening to the conservatives complaints and anger against this health care legislation. This makes it convenient for conservatives to cry out "no taxation without representation," especially since the Republican leadership has been consistently telling lies on the health care reform. But what Erickson fails to realize is that all Americans are represented by their senators, representatives, and the president, and that all Americans had a chance to select their representatives to go to Washington and govern on their behalf. How did Americans select their representatives?

By voting!

In 2008, Americans were given their civic opportunity to vote for their presidential choice between Democratic candidate Barack Obama, or Republican candidate John McCain. Obama received a majority of the votes cast to be elected president (I'm not going into the entire Electoral College system for electing the president.). Americans also had the opportunity to vote for their congressmen, state and local candidates for office, and various state propositions. Some Americans chose to participate in voting--other Americans chose not to participate. President Obama and the Democrats campaigned on a platform of reforming this country's health care system. The American people chose to select more Democratic candidates for Congress than the Republican candidates. Americans who selected the losing candidate for office are still represented by their Senators or House Representative. They can still present their views on issues to their senators or House reps.

Since President Obama campaigned on health care reform, he was going to attempt to fulfill his campaign promise. Obama offered bipartisanship to the congressional Republicans for working on the health care reform bill. The Republicans said no, and proceeded on a campaign of obstructionism, becoming the Party of No. The Democratic leadership decided to go-it-alone in crafting the health care reform bill, since the Republicans refused to work with bipartisanship. The GOP threw every lie, threat, fear-mongering, and political spin in order to derail the health care reform bill, and failed. Not a single Republican voted for the health care reform bill. The Democrats passed health care reform, and President Obama signed it into law.

Erickson is claiming that conservatives are not represented in their government. Erickson is lying. Conservatives had their chance to vote for their candidates in the 2008 election. Not all of their candidates won--Democratic candidates also won in the election. Even in conservative-leaning districts of states. Conservative voters had a chance to voice their opinions to the Republican congressional leadership on reforming health care. Instead of working to provide a comprehensive, bipartisan, health care reform bill, Republicans used a short-term strategy of obstructionism, fear-mongering, hate, death panels, and Obamacare will be killing grandma, to whip up the right-wing extremist base, hoping that their extremist base could scare the Democrats from passing health care. Even more importantly, the Republican obstructionism was also a short-term strategy of driving this country into despair and economic recession so that Americans would elect the Republicans in Congress, and possibly the White House. The Republicans used hatred and fear to advance their political agenda. Even Erickson was responsible for presenting hate and fear-mongering through his blog. In the end, the Republicans failed.

Now in the wake of the Republican's failure to kill health care, and Erickson's own bloody hands in inciting such hatred and fear-mongering to the right-wing base, Erickson suddenly turns around to expresses fear that "some group of angry and now unhinged mob lashing out at congressmen for a vote in the Congress." Excuse me Erickson--you were responsible for inciting such violence with the hate and vitriol that you wrote in your blog. You are responsible even now--in this post--for planting the seed in these wing-nuts that they are American colonists taking up armed insurrection against a tyrannical Democratic Congress and King Barack Obama? If King George will not listen, King George must be fought? Sounds like you are advocating a violent revolution against the Democrats and President Obama. The scary thing about this post is that some crazy, right-wing, extremist will read your posting, and may take it upon himself to assassinate a Democratic Congressman, or Democratic Senator. The blood will be on your hands. But then again, why would you care? You'll continue to spout your hatred and filth with no compunction.

Disgusting.

GOP Rep. Eric Cantor says shots fired in his campaign office

This is from the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

3:40 p.m. The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism agsinst the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., where Rep. Eric I. Cantor, R-7th, has a campagn office.

Police said a first floor window was struck by a bullet at around 1 a.m. on Tuesday. The building was not occupied, police said.

There are no suspects, Gene Lepley, a spokesman for the department, said.

Rep. Eric Cantor says this afternoon that a gunshot was fired through a window of his downtown Richmond campaign office building either last night or two nights ago.

There were no injuries or other details immediately reported. Cantor, in an interview with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, said he doesn’t know whether the shot was random or aimed at the building.

He said he doesn’t know if anyone was in the building when the shot was fired. Richmond police are investigating, he said.

In Washington, Cantor said at a news conference that he has also received threatening e-mail, The Associated Press reported.

Cantor, in Washington, attributed the actions to his being in the House GOP leadership and being Jewish.

The office of Republican Jean Schmidt of Ohio also released a profanity-laced phone message in which the caller accused the GOP of being racist and, referring to an accident two years ago when Schmidt was hit by a car while jogging, said “you should have broke your back, b… .“

First, I'll admit that I don't like the idea of congressmen, or women, being threatened or attacked by anybody. Second, I'm not sure if this story is true or not. I don't know if some crazed liberal activist took potshots at Cantor's office, for Cantor being Jewish? Democratic anti-Sematism? That doesn't seem to make sense. Or is Cantor making this entire story up? I don't know, and I would be interested in hearing more from the Richmond PD. As for Republican representative Jean Schmidt's phone message threat, I could possibly find that more credible if the threat was directed at Schmidt's campaign office, which would have her office phone number open to the public. But I can find very little information on the threat.

Which brings me to the weird Eric Cantor press conference:

WASHINGTON -- And now, Thursday's lesson in how to give very strange press conferences, courtesy of Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the number two House Republican leader.

First, condemn violence against members of Congress. Next, announce that you've been threatened frequently yourself -- including having a bullet shot through your campaign office this week -- because you're Jewish. Third, blame Democrats for the whole mess, saying their decision to talk about threats would lead to more violence. After speaking for no more than four minutes, wrap up and leave the podium, taking no questions and marching silently through the Capitol halls as a mob of reporters chases after you trying to follow up.

[....]

So Cantor's statement Thursday was apparently aimed at cooling the rhetoric down -- mostly by Democrats, in case voters start to think the GOP bears some responsibility for the threats. And then, secondarily, by the people making the threats.

"Let me be clear: I do not condone violence," Cantor said Thursday. "There are no leaders in this building, no rank-and-file members in this building, that condone violence, period. I've received threats since I assumed elected office -- not only because of my position, but also because I'm Jewish. I've never blamed anyone in this body for that."

One such incident, Cantor said, came just this week. "Just recently I have been directly threatened: A bullet was shot through the window of my campaign office in Richmond this week, and I've received threatening emails," he said. "But I will not release them, because I believe such actions will only encourage more to be sent." An aide says authorities are investigating the shooting incident. Richmond police didn't immediately return a call for comment. (Update: Cantor told the Richmond Times-Dispatch no one was injured in the incident, and it's not clear whether the bullet was aimed at the campaign office or just fired randomly.)

But disclosing it let Cantor segue smoothly into putting the blame for the violence where it belonged: on Democrats, who insist on talking about the threats they're receiving. "Legitimate threats should be treated as security issues, and they should be dealt with by the appropriate law enforcement officials," Cantor said. "It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain. That is why I have deep concerns that -- some [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] chairman Chris Van Hollen and [Democratic National Committee] chairman Tim Kaine, in particular -- are dangerously fanning the flames, by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon."

So if I'm reading this correctly, Cantor is claiming that he has received threats and violence, and is blaming the Democrats for fanning the flames of violence. Democrats are fanning the flames of violence? On their own members? Consider the following:

After the Vote, Threats to Some Democrats

Bricks Shatter Windows At Rep. Louise Slaughter's Office, Democratic Party Offices

"Snipers" Threat Left On Rep. Louise Slaughter's Voicemail In Wake Of Health Care Vote

Smash Sensation: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Isn't The Only One With Broken Windows

Tea Party members post Perriello’s brother’s address

FBI investigates Virginia incident

Vandalism reported by Democrats who voted for health bill

Vandals hit at least five Dem offices nationwide, threaten to ‘assassinate’ children of pro-reform lawmakers.

The backlash: Reform turns personal

Stupak receives death threats after voting for health reform.

Health Care Debate Has Protesters Seeing Red, Racism Rears Its Ugly Head

Health Care Reform Leads to Threats

Markey, other health care reform backers report threats, vandalism

Weiner targeted for health care advocacy

Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

And then there are these two interesting stories, where GOP leaders tread the line in making threats to Democrats:

Neugebauer, 'Baby Killer' Yeller, Apologizes For Appearing To Yell At Stupak (VIDEO)

Sarah Palin's PAC Puts Gun Sights On Democrats She's Targeting In 2010

I could probably list even more hate-mongering from the conservative media, but hopefully you're getting the picture here. It appears to me that much of this hate is coming from the right, with top GOP leaders remained silent on such threats, or the Republicans will parse it as Republican chairman Michael Steele told Fox News, "so let's start getting (House Speaker) Nancy (Pelosi) ready for the firing line this November!" And these threats and violence are being directed against Democratic lawmakers. With the ratcheting up of the health care protests, suddenly these threats and violence against the Democrats are gaining attention in the news media, with the source of the threats going back to possibly right-wing extremists, or possibly Tea Party activists--extremists that the Republican Party has been courting for years. This makes me seriously question Cantor's claim that Democrats are blamed for the violence taking place. Why would Democrats target their own party representatives in voting for health care reform? Or are the Democratic leaders making all these threats of violence up? Or is Eric Cantor talking some crazy stupid here?

It doesn't make sense.

Louisiana sheriff arms local volunteers to defend against terrorist attacks

More insanity continues with this TPM Muckraker story:

A Louisiana sheriff plans to arm volunteers with shotguns, riot shields, batons, and a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a "war wagon," as part of "Operation Exodus," a program to provide security in the event of a terrorist attack or civic unrest. "It's a calling," he says.

The office of Sheriff Larry Deen of Bossier Parish, near Shreveport in the northwest part of the state, last month selected for the program 200 local residents -- mostly ex-law-enforcement personnel -- and began training them in "defensive techniques in the event of a struggle," reports the Shreveport Times. The plan calls for the new recruits to be sent to protect food from grocery stores, gas from gas stations, and other crucial local resources, should the situation demand it.

A press release from Deen's office announcing the program declared that "recent terror threats" had made clear that "homegrown terrorists are in our midst." It continued: "With the easy accessibility of the internet, it is quite possible that these local and international terrorists can form a national or multiple location attack on our nation at any given moment."

"The buck stops with Larry Deen," the sheriff, who didn't immediately respond to our interview request, told the Times. "I am the chief law enforcement officer in this parish, and it is incumbent upon me protect all of the people in it."

The press release added that Operation Exodus got its name in part "because of its Biblical relevance," explaining that "[i]n the book of Exodus, the Israelites were totally on their own, learning to be self-sufficient and handle everything alone, just as the plan provides."

I'm starting to think that Sheriff Deen believes that these guys;

A training session for "Operation Exodus" volunteers. From TPM Muckraker.com

Can become like...these guys?



Or am I just making an excuse to post a bad 1980s propaganda movie preview? Still, 1984's Red Dawn was a pretty good movie for some really bad propaganda. What really scares me is that Hollywood is currently remaking Red Dawn for a November 2010 release. Excuse me, but didn't we just win the Cold War over the Russkies?

Next thing you know, Hollywood will be crossing Red Dawn with Left Behind.

Terror attacks rock Indian city of Mumbai

Flames and smoke gush out of the historic historic Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai. Indian commandos battled Thursday to end a multiple hostage crisis in Mumbai after Islamic militants killed 125 people across the city and grabbed foreign guests in two luxury hotels.
(AFP/Indranil Mukherjee)

I've seen this story come up over the last two days. From The New York Times:

MUMBAI, India — Coordinated terrorist attacks struck the heart of Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, on Wednesday night, killing dozens in machine-gun and grenade assaults on at least two five-star hotels, the city’s largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital.

Even by the standards of terrorism in India, which has suffered a rising number of attacks this year, the assaults were particularly brazen in scale and execution. The attackers used boats to reach the urban peninsula where they hit, and their targets were sites popular with tourists.

Map showing coordinated terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. From Yahoo News.

The Mumbai police said Thursday that the attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded at least 250. Guests who had escaped the hotels told television stations that the attackers were taking hostages, singling out Americans and Britons.

A previously unknown group claimed responsibility, though that claim could not be confirmed. It remained unclear whether there was any link to outside terrorist groups.

Gunfire and explosions rang out into the morning.

Indian commandos with sniffer dogs arrive at the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai. (AFP/Prakash Singh)

Hours after the assaults began, the landmark Taj Mahal Palace & Tower Hotel, next to the famed waterfront monument the Gateway of India, was in flames.

The latest New York Times story reports that Indian commando forces have taken control of the two hotels, and are both "searching for survivors and battling bands of gunmen who unleashed two days of chaos" in Mumbai. The remnants of the gunmen are now holed up in the Jewish community center. The death toll is estimated to be around 119 to 125 killed. The death toll just keeps rising.

John Yoo torture memo publicly released

This is from The Washington Post:

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

The 81-page memo, which was declassified and released publicly yesterday, argues that poking, slapping or shoving detainees would not give rise to criminal liability. The document also appears to defend the use of mind-altering drugs that do not produce "an extreme effect" calculated to "cause a profound disruption of the senses or personality."

[....]

Sent to the Pentagon's general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president's inherent wartime powers.

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

Interrogators who harmed a prisoner would be protected by a "national and international version of the right to self-defense," Yoo wrote. He also articulated a definition of illegal conduct in interrogations -- that it must "shock the conscience" -- that the Bush administration advocated for years.

What is scary about this memo is that the president can do anything he wants, as long as the president is commander-in-chief during wartime. This memo basically authorizes U.S. interrogators to torture prisoners, and are protected from any sort of war crimes prosecution as a result of such torture. It has been the basis for this Bush administration's argument for continuing their use of torture against prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. And since we are in an endless Great War on Terrorism, the president can continue abusing these supposed dictatorial powers indefinitely.

It is just mind-boggling.

You can read the entire torture memo here with Part One and Part Two.

PNAC rises from the ashes!

I saw this post from DKos user Ca Libertarian, and I'm just amazed by it. It appears that the neocons' discredited defense and foreign policy think-tank, the great Project for a New American Century, has been reborn as the new defense and foreign policy think-tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

Ca Libertarian looked over the roster, and there are quite a few individuals who jumped over from PNAC to the FDD. And what a roster it is! We've got Steve Forbes, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and Richard Pearle all jumping over from PNAC to this new think-tank. These guys were the heavy hitters in creating PNAC, and trying to sell this neoconservative disaster--first to President Clinton, and then successfully to President George W. Bush. However, the FDD may just be going further than PNAC had ever dreamed of. Looking at the FDD's roster, there are some new supporters of the Bush administration's Great War on Terror. They include former House Rep. Jack Kemp, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Zell Miller, and Victoria Toensing, who was the former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The danger of this think-tank is that it almost breaks itself away from the stigma of PNAC, and PNAC's association with the neoconservative agenda of marketing and engaging in the Bush administration's war in Iraq. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has almost no references to anything regarding PNAC. I did an advanced search through FDD for the "Project for a New American Century," and I received four results of some old 2004 articles. And the articles were really about speculation that the neocon foreign policy may have been correct in pushing the U.S. to invade Iraq. Going through the sources of stories that FDD posted for the Middle East, I see that a number of the sources are from conservative papers--the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the National Review, the New York Post, and the New York Sun. And stories from U.S. News and World Report, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe, are older 2005 stories that were reporting the U.S. war in Iraq was a success, and that democracy was flourishing with Iraqis voting to select their own representatives for the 275-member Iraqi National Assembly in order to write Iraq's new constitution. The FDD is a think-tank that is supportive of the Bush war in Iraq. They even have their own blog, which is nothing more than a reposting of conservative media stories and editorials, with no analysis or commentary on the articles. The bottom line is that PNAC has come back under a new name, but with the same founders and the same neoconservative ideology.

FBI to follow the terrorist's Falafel trail

I found this CQ Politics story through The Carpetbagger Report. You can also find this story on Firedog Lake, and Laura Rozen.

From CQ Politics:

Like Hansel and Gretel hoping to follow their bread crumbs out of the forest, the FBI sifted through customer data collected by San Francisco-area grocery stores in 2005 and 2006, hoping that sales records of Middle Eastern food would lead to Iranian terrorists.

The idea was that a spike in, say, falafel sales, combined with other data, would lead to Iranian secret agents in the south San Francisco-San Jose area.

The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon, according to well-informed sources, the project didn’t last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI’s criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous — and possibly illegal.

A check of federal court records in California did not reveal any prosecutions developed from falafel trails.

FBI spokesman Paul Bresson would neither confirm nor deny that the bureau ran such data mining, or forward-leaning “domain management,” experiments, but said he would continue to investigate. “It sounds pretty sensational to me,” he said, upon his initial review of the allegation. The techniques were briefly mentioned last year in a PBS Frontline special, “The Enemy Within”.

And as for my commentary on this story, well....



But reading further into this CQ Politics story, I found this tidbit of information:

As ridiculous as it sounds, the groceries counting scheme is a measure of how desperate the FBI is to disrupt domestic terrorism plots.

The possibility of Iranian-sponsored terrorism in the United States has drawn major attention from the FBI because of rising tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program.

“Because of the heightened difficulties surrounding U.S.-Iranian relations, the FBI has increased its focus on Hezbollah,” Bresson said 16 months ago. “Those investigations relate particularly to the potential presence of Hezbollah members on U.S. soil.”

Just this week, analyst Matthew Levitt wrote that “according to FBI officials here, some 50-100 Hamas and Hezbollah members with military training are present in the United States.” An FBI spokesman would not confirm that figure.

[The] groceries counting scheme is a measure of how desperate the FBI is to disrupt domestic terrorism plots. How much do you want to bet that it is the Bush administration that is pressuring the FBI into disrupting domestic terrorist plots? It is all about the politics of fear, by the Bush administration, for political gain. Remember the Nexus of Politics and Terror? See Keith Olbermann's two part story:

Olbermann's Nexus of Politics and Terror, Part One;



Olbermann's Nexus of Politics and Terror, Part Two;



We've got the 2008 presidential elections coming up, and the GOP may just be getting desperate at President Bush's low approval ratings, and the possibility that the Democrats may end up taking control of the White House. Already, we're starting to again see the terrorist fear card being played by the Republican Party against the Democrats. Now CQ Politics is trying to connect this FBI grocery surveillance program with the growing confrontation between the Bush administration and Iran, with the possibility of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism. I'm going to say that is crap! It is about the Bush administration's raising the sense of terrorist fears in Americans--the terrorists want to kill you! It doesn't matter to President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney whether the terrorists are Iraqi terrorists, al Qaeda terrorists, or even Iranian terrorists, just as long as they can use these terrorism threats to further their own political self-interests. And with the 2008 elections coming up, the Bush administration may be worried that the FBI has not yet disrupted any terrorism plots, that they can then politically use. Perhaps that is why the FBI is so desperate that they are investigating Falafel purchases in grocery stores.

Congress rubber-stamps Bush wiretapping bill to spy on Americans

It is official. Congress has just given President Bush the legal authority to spy on Americans without any court order. The Senate passed the bill in a late-night session on August 3, 2007, by a vote of 60-28. The House passed the wiretapping bill Saturday August 4, 2007, by a vote of 227-183. President Bush signed the bill into law on Sunday, August 5, 2007.

Before I get into this topic, let's get into some background. According to The New York Times story on Bush's signing of the wiretapping law:

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London.

Are you getting it now? The Bush administration has just made an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. By specifically declaring that the target of the NSA wiretapping is the person in London, the NSA can also listen into the conversation with the person in Indianapolis without going to the FISA court for a search warrant. This is a huge loophole here. The actual NSA target for this particular NY Times example may have been that person in Indianapolis, but because of the Fourth Amendment, that person was protected against unwarranted searches and seizures by the state. If the NSA wanted to listen in on that Indianapolis person's conversations, they had to get a search warrant. With this new law in place, the NSA can say on paper that they wanted to listen London person's conversations, when in reality, they were more interested in the Indianapolis person's conversations in this wiretapped call between Indianapolis and London. That is the real scare here. And what is more, who is still to say that the Bush administration is listening in on these calls for terrorism-fighting reasons, or for potential political reasons? Because with this law, the Bush administration can listen in on conversations from their political enemies without any warrants, simply because the NSA is supposedly targeting the foreign end of this wiretap.

It gets worst. According to the NY Times:

The legislation to change the surveillance act was rushed through both the House and Senate in the last days before the August recess began.

The White House’s push for the change was driven in part by a still-classified ruling earlier this year by the special intelligence court, which said the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls going through American switches.

The new law, which is intended as a stopgap and expires in six months, also represents a power shift in terms of the oversight and regulation of government surveillance.

The new law gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court. The court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted. It will not scrutinize the cases of the individuals being monitored.

The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.

You've got to love this. Instead of having the FISA court approve the NSA wiretappings, Congress gave that power to this nation's incredible Bastion of Truth--Alberto Gonzales! Yes, we're talking the same Alberto Gonzales, who has consistently lied to Congress on the U.S. attorney firings as a CYA to the Bush White House. Gonzales will now be given the power to approve those NSA wiretaps--not the court. Gonzales is also given the power to force the telecommunications companies to cooperate with the Bush White House in these spying operations. This is the powers of a dictator here.

And the congressional Democrats just lied down, and let President Bush screw them! I really don't know what to say here. Were the congressional Democrats too afraid of this administration calling them "weak on terrorism?" Were the Democrats fearful of Republicans stirring up the fear-mongering of potential al Qaeda terrorist attacks that could take place in Washington DC, while the "lazy" Democrats were fiddling around on vacation, instead of giving President Bush more terrorist-fighting power? Or did the congressional Democrats really just wanted to say "Screw it," and give Bush whatever he wanted so that they could go on vacation? I really don't know what the answer is here. All I can say is that I'm disgusted with the Democrats capitulating to Bush. I can understand when the Democrats can't get legislation through Congress because of Republican obstructionism, or even a presidential veto. But here the congressional Democrats gave President Bush everything he wanted for spying on us without any oversight, without any fight.

Disgusting.

One man's art (a submarine?) runs into trouble

Duke Riley, an artist, in his Revolutionary War-era submarine replica, the Acorn, today. (Photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times)

Yes, that is The New York Times' headline for this rather fascinating story. I'm going to post extensively from The NY Times article here:

What began as an unorthodox art project has become a law-enforcement headache today and the talk of the New York blogosphere.

Duke Riley, a heavily tattooed Brooklyn artist whose waterborne performance projects around the city have frequently landed him in trouble with authorities, spent the last five months building a makeshift submarine — a partial replica of what may be America’s earliest submarine, an oak sphere called the Turtle, which saw action (not particularly successful action) in New York Harbor during the Revolutionary War.

The wood and fiberglass submarine, which was launched into the New York Harbor, made its way toward a far larger vessel — the Queen Mary 2, one of the largest ocean liners in the world, which was docked at the cruise ship terminal in the Buttermilk Channel off Red Hook, Brooklyn.

What happened next was a delicate mixture of performance art and domestic security.

The Police Department released the following statement from Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, who did not seem particularly interested in the artistic or historical merit of this project:

A makeshift submarine discovered at about 10:30 this morning by an N.Y.P.D. Intelligence detective on board the Queen Mary 2 in New York Harbor is the creative craft of three adventuresome individuals. It does not pose any terrorist threat.

In addition to assigned posts including Queen Mary 2, N.Y.P.D. Harbor and SCUBA officers patrol approximately 150 square miles of navigable New York City waterways and hundreds of miles of waterfront. They employ advanced underwater camera technology in their portfolio, as well as perform coordinated surveillance under the N.Y.P.D. Counter Terrorism and Intelligence divisions ­ as demonstrated today.

While our ongoing investigation has so far yielded no suspicious devices or materials other than the vessel itself, N.Y.P.D. detectives will extensively examine Queen Mary 2 to ensure its integrity. The three individuals believed responsible are in custody and may face various charges. Meanwhile we can summarize today’s incident as marine mischief.

Mr. Riley begins preparing his vessel on Thursday, the night before the launch. Damon Winter / The New York Times.

This is just incredible. Here is a guy who was able to build a partial replica of America's first submarine, and navigate this sub out towards the Queen Mary 2 in New York City harbor in daylight! What is even more amazing is that New York Harbor patrol never spotted the Turtle replica--a detective on the Queen Mary 2 first spotted it. According to the NY Times:

The Coast Guard issued two citations to Mr. Riley, 35, whose real name is Philip Riley. One citation was for having an unsafe vessel, the other for violating a security zone, The Associated Press reported. Two men from Rhode Island, who were artistic accomplices of Mr. Riley’s and were in an inflatable boat next to the submarine, were taken in for questioning, along with Mr. Riley.

The sub came within 200 feet of the bow of the Queen Mary 2, Petty Officer Angelia Rorison of the Coast Guard said, according to The A.P. “Basically, the vessel was not safe to sail,” she said. “It had no lights, no flares. It was not registered. Instead of safety violations, this could have turned into a search and rescue.”

Mr. Riley is detained by officers from the New York Police Department after drifting close to the Queen Mary II docked in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Damon Winter / The New York Times

Riley's sub came within 200 feet of the Queen Mary 2. It is astonishing that in this modern era of technology, this technological marvel of the Revolutionary War could still show itself to be a very potent weapon. Had Riley wanted to seriously attack the Queen Mary 2, he could have launched his submarine at night, when New York Harbor patrol would probably have never seen the replica sub at all. But Riley's sub was not a weapon--it was a combination of art, history, and perhaps even a political statement on our paranoia of homeland security.

And that is the second little observation that I found interesting on this article. When you look at the first paragraph of the New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly's press statement, it basically said that the department discovered the sub heading towards the Queen Mary 2, and that the sub didn't pose a terrorist threat. But then look at the second and third paragraphs of that statement:

In addition to assigned posts including Queen Mary 2, N.Y.P.D. Harbor and SCUBA officers patrol approximately 150 square miles of navigable New York City waterways and hundreds of miles of waterfront. They employ advanced underwater camera technology in their portfolio, as well as perform coordinated surveillance under the N.Y.P.D. Counter Terrorism and Intelligence divisions ­ as demonstrated today.

While our ongoing investigation has so far yielded no suspicious devices or materials other than the vessel itself, N.Y.P.D. detectives will extensively examine Queen Mary 2 to ensure its integrity. The three individuals believed responsible are in custody and may face various charges. Meanwhile we can summarize today’s incident as marine mischief.

You've got to love the contradiction here. We've discovered a makeshift submarine heading towards the Queen Mary 2 that actually didn't pose a terrorist threat. Of course Commissioner Kelly never bothers to mention that Riley's sub came within 200 feet of the Queen Mary's bow. Instead Commissioner Kelly launches into this stirring speech of how successful the New York City Police and Harbor patrol officers were in protecting New York City's harbor and waterfront area with the most advanced underwater camera technology and surveillance equipment as demonstrated in this thwarting of a potential terrorist attack by a makeshift sub. Excuse me? Riley's sub was spotted by a sharp-eyed detective who was on the Queen Mary 2--not by the advanced underwater camera technology and surveillance equipment. And remember, Riley's sub was just 200 feet away from the Queen Mary 2. What's more, even though the New York City Police has decided that Riley's sub was not considered a terrorist threat, they are still going to investigate the Queen Mary 2--just to make sure that the ship doesn't blow up! And if you think Commissioner Kelly's praises are wacked out, consider what the Coast Guard said about Riley's sub:

The sub came within 200 feet of the bow of the Queen Mary 2, Petty Officer Angelia Rorison of the Coast Guard said, according to The A.P. “Basically, the vessel was not safe to sail,” she said. “It had no lights, no flares. It was not registered. Instead of safety violations, this could have turned into a search and rescue.”

It appears that Coast Guard Petty Officer Rorison was more concerned about Riley's make-shift sub not passing the Coast Guard Safety Protocols here! Here is your Fix-It Ticket! Have a nice day!

My criticism here isn't against the officers of the New York City Police Department or the Coast Guard who are trying to protect our waterways and harbors. My criticism here is against the politicization of this story here--especially by Commissioner Kelly. Kelly takes this story and spins it as a success story against a potential terrorist threat. It wasn't a success story! Riley's sub got with 200 feet of the Queen Mary 2 in broad daylight. This was a publicity stunt. If Riley was a serious terrorist, he would have launched his sub at night to attack a ship. And the New York City police would probably have never spotted him, perhaps even after the attack. In a sense, Commissioner Kelly is no different in politicizing this story as a terror success, than President Bush has been in issuing terror threats on the American people for political gain. It is outrageous.

As for the Coast Guard's response, I'm more amused rather than outraged. From what was written in the story, the Coast Guard didn't bring up the big terror threat of Riley's sub, but was more concerned about the lack of safety issues on this make-shift sub. Safety issues on a make-shift sub? Petty Officer Angelia Rorison seemed more like an overly concerned mother, exclaiming, "Now children--don't build make-shift submarines without your proper Coast Guard safety tips!" It is like an overt warning to Americans who may be seriously thinking about building their own backyard submarines, and a constant smothering of safety first. It is not as outrageous as Commissioner Kelly's PR-terror success story, but just as strange. However I will give Rorison a major brownie point here--the Coast Guard did report that Riley's sub came within 200 feet of the Queen Mary 2. Commissioner Kelly never reported that fact in his terror success statement.

Even in this strange story of a man's art or submarine, we can still find the crass politicalization of terrorism.

U.K. police thwart car bomb threat

This is off MSNBC News:

LONDON - Police in London’s bustling nightclub and theater district on Friday defused a bomb that could have killed hundreds, after an ambulance crew spotted smoke coming from a Mercedes filled with a lethal mix of gasoline, propane and nails, authorities said.

The bomb near Piccadilly Circus was powerful enough to have caused “significant injury or loss of life” — possibly killing hundreds, British anti-terror police chief Peter Clarke said.

Authorities believe the bombers had intended to set the bomb off remotely, by cell phone, Sky News television reported, citing sources.

Britain’s new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, called an emergency meeting of top officials and later called the attempted attack “international terrorism.”

Hours later, police closed a major road, Park Lane, on the edge of Hyde Park after reports of a suspicious vehicle.

Sky News reported that the second vehicle was connected to the car bomb found earlier. But, prior to the television report, a police spokesperson said there was nothing to immediately suggest it was linked to the earlier incident.

All I can say here is that this is what a real terrorist threat is suppose to look like, unlike the multiple Department of Homeland Security's fantasy terrorist threats we've been exposed to by the Bush administration. The U.K. police did their job here.

Shall we take a trip and see all the fantasy terror warnings that were issued by the Bush administration? Here's a little two part reminder by Keith Olbermann:

The Nexus of Politics and Terror, Part One;



The Nexus of Politics and Terror, Part Two;

Americans don't know when the 9/11 attacks took place

I found this video through MoxieGrrrl, and I'm just amazed by it. I don't know whether the American people are that stupid, ignorant...or...what? According to the comments in MoxiGrrrl, this informal survey was done for an Australian satire television program Chaser's War on Everything. The video can also be found here on YouTube:

Hunger strike breaks out at Gitmo

This is from The New York Times:

A new, long-term hunger strike has broken out at the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, with more than a dozen detainees subjecting themselves to daily force-feeding to protest their treatment, military officials and lawyers for the detainees said.

Lawyers for several hunger strikers said their clients’ action were driven by harsh conditions in a new maximum security complex to which about 160 prisoners have been moved since December.

The 13 detainees now on hunger strikes is the highest number to endure the force-feeding regimen on an extended basis since early 2006, when the military broke a long-running strike with a new policy of strapping prisoners into “restraint chairs” while they are fed by plastic tubes inserted through their nostrils.

The hunger strikers are now monitored so closely the they have virtually no chance to starve themselves. Yet their persistence underscores how the struggle between detainees and guards at Guantánamo has continued even as the military has tightened its control.

“We don’t have any rights here, even after your Supreme Court said we had rights,” one hunger striker, Majid al-Joudi, told a military physician, according to medical records released recently under a federal court order. “If the policy does not change, you will see a big increase in fasting.”

A military spokesman at Guantánamo, Cmdr. Robert Durand of the Navy, played down the significance of the current hunger strike, describing the prisoners’ complaints as “propaganda.”

A couple of items here. First, we've got 13 inmates going on this hunger strike as a protest against the harsh conditions they face in Gitmo. They still have no legal rights, no charges have been leveled against them, no trial, and no cross-examination of the evidence against them. The Bush administration has not only locked them up and threw away the key here, but the administration has placed them in a new maximum security complex for which they are just rotting away. And of course, the U.S. military is calling this "propaganda." Continuing with The NY Times story:

Newly released Pentagon documents show that during earlier hunger strikes, before the use of restraint chairs, some detainees suffered sharp weight losses. A handful of those prisoners lost more than 30 pounds in a matter of weeks, the records show. By comparison, the current hunger strike — in which 12 of the 13 were being force-fed as of Friday — seems almost symbolic.

For instance, the medical records for Mr. Joudi, a 36-year-old Saudi, show that when he was hospitalized on Feb. 10, he had been fasting for 31 days and had lost more than 15 percent of his body weight.

By the time he was transferred a few days later to a “feeding block” where hard-core hunger strikers are segregated from other prisoners, his condition had stabilized and his weight was nearly back to its ideal level for a man his size. (His exact weight gain was not recorded.)

Lawyers for several detainees being held in the new maximum security complex, called Camp 6, compared it to “super-max” prisons in the United States. The major differences, they said, are that the detainees have limited reading material and no television, and that only 10 of the roughly 385 men at Guantánamo have been charged.

The Camp 6 inmates are generally locked in their 8-by-10-foot cells for at least 22 hours a day, emerging only to exercise in small wire cages and shower. Besides those exercise periods, they can talk with other prisoners only by shouting through food slots in the steel doors of their cells.

“My wish is to die,” one reported hunger striker in the camp, Adnan Farhan Abdullatif, a 27-year old Yemeni, told his lawyer on Feb. 27, according to recently declassified notes of the meeting. “We are living in a dying situation.”

[....]

Camp 6 was originally designed as a modern, medium-security prison complex for up to 200 inmates, with common areas where they could gather for meals and a large, fenced-in athletic field where they might jog or play soccer outside the high, concrete walls.

But after a riot last May and the suicides of three prisoners in June, the unit was retrofitted to limit the detainees’ freedom of movement and reduce the risk that they might hurt themselves or attack guards, military officials said.

Senior officials expressed concern in interviews about how prisoners would react to the greater isolation in Camp 6. Most had been held on makeshift blocks of wire-mesh cells that — while often hot, noisy and lacking privacy — allowed them to communicate easily, pray together and even pass written messages.

Guantánamo’s other maximum-security unit, Camp 5, has pods of cells that face each other across a short hallway, allowing the roughly 100 detainees there to converse fairly easily. In Camp 6, the prisoners can see one another from their cells only when one of them is being moved. At other times, they look out on the stainless-steel picnic tables in the common areas they are not allowed to use.

Lawyers for half a dozen Camp 6 detainees said their clients were uniformly despondent about the move even though, as military officials note, the new cells are 27 square feet larger than the old ones and have air-conditioning, nicer toilets and sinks, and a small desk anchored to the wall.

“They’re just sitting on a powder keg down there,” said one lawyer, Sabin Willett, who, like others, described an atmosphere of growing desperation among the prisoners. “You’re going to have an insane asylum.”

This is how the Bush administration fights The Great War on Terror--building what amounts to concentration camps for these supposed terrorists. Lock them up and throw away the key. Deny them any legal rights. Let them rot away.

Read the entire article.