Better make this one a picture book.

See Dick.
See Dick making a bomb.
See Dick walking to the clinic.

/etc

One thing I've learned; people like to bitch and moan.

If the report wasn't meant for public consumption, why is it posted on the DHS website?

An extremist by any other name is still an extremist

The report equated general political beliefs with violent extremism, contained almost no specific cases, and at least one of the cases it did cite was based on an error-laden news report. No matter how one cuts it, this "report" was a disgrace, little better than a poorly written and researched high-school term paper. It would have been equally as much a disgrace had it been issued about the Left. It should never have come out at all.

I'd like to see the ACLU on a DHS 'Situational Awareness' Report.

re: #5 Anthony (Los Angeles)

The report equated general political beliefs with violent extremism...

No, it didn't.

re: #6 LGoPs

I'd like to see the ACLU on a DHS 'Situational Awareness' Report.

When has the ACLU committed violent crimes?

But But But But But she is supposedly on the short list for the Supreme Court?

Much ado about nothing. People are straining to see if their particular ox is gored.

Ooh! Ooh! Let me see! Maybe I got dissed!

You may already be a victim!

Still waiting for the American Muslim report.

I posted that Veterans sometimes are commies and creamed for saying it...I fired the person that out that idea in my head...all's well that ends well!

Please make it go away.

re: #11 pat

Still waiting for the American Muslim report.

There have been several DHS reports and studies on militant Islam. I've linked to some of them. Did you miss those links?

Does this new development qualify for the crybaby graphic?

for all the jokes and misguided criticism, and with a strong sense of fair play...I say JN is taking one here she does not deserve

“in the process of being replaced ... in a much more precise fashion.”

I would agree that it wasn't a very "precise" document...but I don't see what all the hubbub is about. It seemed like an executive summery of people that I wouldn't invite over to dinner. I didn't find anything offensive about the document.

Interesting thread and it's still early. It should be called, "Charles stirs the pot".
/

re: #8 Charles

When has the ACLU committed violent crimes?

Fine. I should have added a sarc tag...

The news is spinning this, and everyone wants to play along. Why does everyone agree to be played? This is bizarre.

re: #18 CommonCents

Interesting thread and it's still early. It should be called, "Charles stirs the pot".
/

right wing GOP loonies stir the pot

re: #21 albusteve

right wing GOP loonies stir the pot

I was commenting on the number of rebuttal posts amongst the first 14, not necessarily the topic.

I would agree that the report was a vague and poorly written document, but it also seems obvious to me that the mood in the country these days is ripe for someone on the extreme Right to do something crazy.

re: #20 swamprat

The news is spinning this, and everyone wants to play along. Why does everyone agree to be played? This is bizarre.

in their little micro rad world, they may get a mention on the news!

re: #23 Ringo the Gringo

I would agree that the report was a vague and poorly written document, but it also seems obvious to me that the mood in the country these days is ripe for someone on the extreme Right to do something crazy.

hell yes...look at Europe

OT: Charles,

On that stats link up top left, what does the Reuters comments represent?

right wing extremist

re: #20 swamprat

The news is spinning this, and everyone wants to play along. Why does everyone agree to be played? This is bizarre.

More than one 'conservative' news source even lied outright about the report. The Wshington Times deliberately left off a section of a quote that completely changed the meaning:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

No amount of sensitivity training will prevent seething.

it is interesting that the dems are backing down.
i'm sure it has something to do w/ fear of alienating voters who didn't like the tone of the report. there is enough going on already to alienate them.

re: #3 simonml

If the report wasn't meant for public consumption, why is it posted on the DHS website?

The DHS also has internal websites for law enforcement use only.

I see many people are still missing the point.

re: #29 Charles

More than one 'conservative' news source even lied outright about the report. The Wshington Times deliberately left off a section of a quote that completely changed the meaning:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

That's the part that burns me. There is plenty of ammunition to argue against the left that they don't need to mislead. Lefties tend to make things up out of whole cloth. Their arguments can be defeated with simple fact. Why sink to that level?

I am totally confused. Didn't she defend the original report multiple times?

I have to laugh.
After people bend over backwards and go out of their way to defend her poorly worded and ill-considered report, Napolitano then proceeds to fold like a cheap deck of cards.
What a tool.

For every class in "sensitivity", there should be a class on "developing thicker skin" for the the objects of the "sensitivity" class.

re: #32 Charles

The DHS also has internal websites for law enforcement use only.

So it was an internal report that was leaked? I'm just asking why it needs to be "taken off" the DHS websites.

re: #39 Iron Fist

that would hurt people's feelings. Quit mocking them for being so sensitive! Have you no sensitivity (oh, wait...)

;~)

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between "conservative" and "extreme right". Conservatives are by definition not extreme, where as "right wing extremists" are by definition, radical - which is the opposite of conservative.

If you are a conservative, this report is not about you. But if you're a radical right-winger, it is.

re: #36 Spare O'Lake

I have to laugh.
After people bend over backwards and go out of their way to defend her poorly worded and ill-considered report, Napolitano then proceeds to fold like a cheap deck of cards.
What a tool.

[Video]

Welcome to politics. If enough people scream and hold hearings and demand action, bureaucrats will back down. What a shock!

I'm not taking back a single thing I wrote about the report. I still think the reaction from right wing blogs and talk show hosts and politicians over this was disgraceful.

re: #29 Charles

And nobody calls them out, and the media and the groups themselves take the news at face value. It's as if they want to be considered as nutjobs.

Ahh yes, the 1990s are trying to make a comeback. Where Timothy McVeigh is depicted as the average veteran and guys like Theodore Kaczynski get fawned over for his ideas by the likes of Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems.

Speaking of Ted Kaczynski, The profile that depicted the Unabomber as a crazed veteran was quietly '86ed when the Harvard-educated background of Dr. Kaczynski was revealed.

re: #38 simonml

So it was an internal report that was leaked? I'm just asking why it needs to be "taken off" the DHS websites.

It was marked "For Official Use Only," and one of the first sites that got hold of a leaked copy and posted it was ... Alex Jones' infowars.com.

re: #45 Charles

It was marked "For Official Use Only," and one of the first sites that got hold of a leaked copy and posted it was ... Alex Jones' infowars.com.

That's not the official leak source!

/NYT

re: #29 Charles

More than one 'conservative' news source even lied outright about the report. The Wshington Times deliberately left off a section of a quote that completely changed the meaning:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

So does the MSM all the time. That doesn't mean Conservative News sources should do it also of course. It just is what it is. Any Intelligent reader ( no comment) should always be able to read between the lines and perhaps try to access the source material when possible.

re: #45 Charles

It was marked "For Official Use Only," and one of the first sites that got hold of a leaked copy and posted it was ... Alex Jones' infowars.com.

ahh so...thanks

re: #44 Dr. Gene Squat

Where Timothy McVeigh is depicted as the average veteran...

The report did NOT do that. It stated very explicitly that only "a small percentage" of veterans would be susceptible to recruitment by extremists.

re: #45 Charles

It was marked "For Official Use Only," and one of the first sites that got hold of a leaked copy and posted it was ... Alex Jones' infowars.com.

A different question, but one that's a bit more pointed. How did Alex Jones get ahold of the report in the first place?

Funny how Obama and Pelosi are in a little hot water and this little tidbit raises it's ugly head again. It's called diversionary tactics.

re: #45 Charles

It was marked "For Official Use Only," and one of the first sites that got hold of a leaked copy and posted it was ... Alex Jones' infowars.com.

Haha. Makes sense. Since it was internally released only it looks like the gov't was "hiding" the report. Now all the hubub makes a little more sense to me.

But then I ask, if you're a veteran and don't join an extremist group, why get upset? You're not the ones the report mentions.

re: #50 Honorary Yooper

A different question, but one that's a bit more pointed. How did Alex Jones get ahold of the report in the first place?

A plumber leaked it to him.

re: #42 Charles

Welcome to politics. If enough people scream and hold hearings and demand action, bureaucrats will back down. What a shock!

I'm not taking back a single thing I wrote about the report. I still think the reaction from right wing blogs and talk show hosts and politicians over this was disgraceful.

I think it was a combination of laziness (scanning the report, rather than actually reading it) combined with built-in skepticism of anything coming out of the 0bama administration.

re: #42 Charles

Welcome to politics. If enough people scream and hold hearings and demand action, bureaucrats will back down. What a shock!

I'm not taking back a single thing I wrote about the report. I still think the reaction from right wing blogs and talk show hosts and politicians over this was disgraceful.

I admire you for sticking to your convictions.
Too bad Napolitano herself doesn't seem to any.

re: #51 KenJen

Funny how Obama and Pelosi are in a little hot water and this little tidbit raises it's ugly head again. It's called diversionary tactics.

"Oh, look! A chicken!"
/general public

Boehner on now, should be good. Sorry for the OT so soon.

Pelosi says Bush team misled her on waterboarding

Pelosi says Bush team made her stupid and forgetful. Methinks it was the botox and senility, you stupid lying git.

re: #51 KenJen

Funny how Obama and Pelosi are in a little hot water and this little tidbit raises it's ugly head again. It's called diversionary tactics.

The people raising the issue are Republican politicians.

re: #55 Spare O'Lake

I admire you for sticking to your convictions.
Too bad Napolitano herself doesn't seem to any.

her convictions are not the issue here...the document and it's meaning is

re: #53 debutaunt

A plumber leaked it to him.

Heh. Seriously, though, I am curious who leaked it to him. As I've said before, it could be a right-winger who wanted to use Jones to stir up support, or it could be a left-winger who wanted to use Jones to discredit the right. It will be interesting to see who leaked it and why.

Whomever it was, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

re: #45 Charles

It was marked "For Official Use Only," and one of the first sites that got hold of a leaked copy and posted it was ... Alex Jones' infowars.com.

Perhaps if someone ever got prosecuted for leaking this shit it would not happen all the time. Personally I believe we should have a version of England's secrets law. A report like this would not qualify for that, but there still should be some penalty for publishing stuff like this. I know it comes close to trampling on "our rights" but still. And anyone who thinks the Government is hiding shit on flying saucers or Kennedy's assassination should rethink how our Gov. holds secrets tight?

re: #54 Ward Cleaver

I think it was a combination of laziness (scanning the report, rather than actually reading it) combined with built-in skepticism of anything coming out of the 0bama administration.

I really think this is just a symptom of the anti-government paranoia that has become so popular with conservatives these days. It's a sickness.

re: #55 Spare O'Lake

I admire you for sticking to your convictions.
Too bad Napolitano herself doesn't seem to any.

...to have any.
PIMF

re: #49 Charles

And so would a small percentage of almost any group. Nuts are everywhere.

re: #51 KenJen

Funny how Obama and Pelosi are in a little hot water and this little tidbit raises it's ugly head again. It's called diversionary tactics.

their official position

re: #66 summergurl

And so would a small percentage of almost any group. Nuts are everywhere.

You met my in-laws?

re: #64 Killgore Trout

I really think this is just a symptom of the anti-government paranoia that has become so popular with conservatives these days. It's a sickness.

It may be a sickness, but it is little different than the anti-government paranoia the liberals had for years after the 2000 election. Wingnuts all.

re: #58 acwgusa

Pelosi says Bush team misled her on waterboarding

Pelosi says Bush team made her stupid and forgetful. Methinks it was the botox and senility, you stupid lying git.

Pelosi really needs to try to make this all go away. She just makes it worse with each additional comment.

Sailors, Coasties capture suspected pirates
By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday May 14, 2009 10:15:50 EDT
Surrendering from a rust heap that appeared barely able to float, 17 suspected pirates were captured Wednesday off the coast of Yemen by sailors and Coast Guardsmen operating from the cruiser Gettysburg.

[Link: www.navytimes.com...]

re: #70 opnion

Pelosi really needs to try to make this all go away. She just makes it worse with each additional comment.

Let her keep digging.

re: #3 simonml

If the report wasn't meant for public consumption, why is it posted on the DHS website?

Exactly. It was there, it got reviewed and you can bet the DHS webmaster wasn't the drafter.

Reports of such gravity are not done by one person. I know, I've been "in the system." Written plenty myself. Never had full signature authority. Was the "ghost" for several bosses and wrote some policy changing stuff.

The big picture is the sloppiness, and or the allowance of a purely political agenda to be substituted for sound, professional, serious work in the defense of this Nation.

The rhetoric about who it was for is a smoke screen, to make it sound like it was a mistake. Classified, even FOUO, needs better handling. IMHO, this report should have been higher, in classifiaction, if it really was out there for the purpose of doing DHS work.

re: #42 Charles

Welcome to politics. If enough people scream and hold hearings and demand action, bureaucrats will back down. What a shock!

I'm not taking back a single thing I wrote about the report. I still think the reaction from right wing blogs and talk show hosts and politicians over this was disgraceful.

Politics is ugly. Like making sausage. I do however think that it is healthy to be skeptical and to put the government on notice and to push back.

re: #58 acwgusa

Pelosi says Bush team misled her on waterboarding

Pelosi says Bush team made her stupid and forgetful. Methinks it was the botox and senility, you stupid lying git.

Guarantee she will never be under oath in any truth commission that she is demanding. Fox is reporting "she has changed her position several times in the last few weeks.

re: #64 Killgore Trout

I really think this is just a symptom of the anti-government paranoia that has become so popular with conservatives these days. It's a sickness.

Just trying to balance out the pro-government paranoia.

re: #69 Honorary Yooper

It may be a sickness, but it is little different than the anti-government paranoia the liberals had for years after the 2000 election. Wingnuts all.

To expound on that point, I find it really interesting how a man like Alex Jones has managed to first be in bed with the left wingnuts regarding Trooferism, and is now in bed with the right wingnuts. He seems to be more of an opportunist than having an ideology.

re: #70 opnion

Pelosi really needs to try to make this all go away. She just makes it worse with each additional comment.

Did you see her press conference? She practically ran away from the podium when it started getting heated. Lots of body language to observe---

re: #49 Charles

The report did NOT do that. It stated very explicitly that only "a small percentage" of veterans would be susceptible to recruitment by extremists.

Not unlike a small percentage of veterans who are recruited as mouthpieces and trophies for leftist causes. Or a small percentage of active military that would a) roll a grenade in a tent on his commanding officer b) sell fleet plans to al-qaeda c) provide technical details of abrams tanks to jihadis in Iraq d) sell weapons to their Mexican drug dealing buddies. There is no perfect group of people but as a whole the military and veterans are better than other groups. The report is referring to the fringe stragglers not the lot.

re: #64 Killgore Trout

I really think this is just a symptom of the anti-government paranoia that has become so popular with conservatives these days. It's a sickness.

A sickness based on a real infection:

Tincture of Lawlessness

The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

There is real anger at the...audacity...of some of this Admin's actions. It's being personified in right wing crazies, but the anger is much more widespread. Makes us ripe for extreme overreaction.

Napolatino made the announcement yesterday. She knew what this reignite the fire. I think this is making some Republican politician look foolish. They need to drop it IMHO.

re: #60 albusteve

her convictions are not the issue here...the document and it's meaning is

The story is morphing from the report itself, to the attacks from the extreme right, to her unprincipled reaction.

re: #64 Killgore Trout

I really think this is just a symptom of the anti-government paranoia that has become so popular with conservatives these days. It's a sickness.

I do not trust the govt...I've have no paranoia...but they do seem to want to soak my for every cent they can squeeze and dictate half of my ADLs...

re: #80 Russkilitlover

There is real anger at the...audacity...of some of this Admin's actions. It's being personified in right wing crazies, but the anger is much more widespread. Makes us ripe for extreme overreaction.

You're on to something there.

re: #69 Honorary Yooper

It may be a sickness, but it is little different than the anti-government paranoia the liberals had for years after the 2000 election.

It's a little different but not much. Specifically speaking, it's identical to the Alex Jones/Ron Paul stuff that has been going on for years.

re: #70 opnion

Pelosi really needs to try to make this all go away. She just makes it worse with each additional comment.

Her comment about not complaining about waterboarding because she was too busy trying to oust the republicans from congress was a real doozy.

re: #82 Spare O'Lake

The story is morphing from the report itself, to the attacks from the extreme right, to her unprincipled reaction.

yes I know...that's just the point isn't it?

re: #85 Killgore Trout

It's a little different but not much. Specifically speaking, it's identical to the Alex Jones/Ron Paul stuff that has been going on for years.

However, why is Alex Jones now hitching his wagon to Ron Paul and his band on the right after having been for years over with the Troofer left?

Had a buddy lose his job about the same time I did. I got a new job (not a penny of unemployment here) and he's still drawing unemployment (his plan all along) over a year later.

re: #75 johnnyreb

Guarantee she will never be under oath in any truth commission that she is demanding. Fox is reporting "she has changed her position several times in the last few weeks.

Pelosi and the truth have not had even a passing relationship.

That Pelosi can lie faster than she can bat an eye.

re: #58 acwgusa

Pelosi says Bush team misled her on waterboarding

Pelosi says Bush team made her stupid and forgetful. Methinks it was the botox and senility, you stupid lying git.

Ms. Pelosi is kind of an odd duck. Whatever synapses are firing seem to be launching sanity into deep space. Perhaps I'm just sensitive to words and their meanings, but I do find this snippet troubling:

Pelosi renewed her call for a so-called truth commission to investigate the events in the Bush administration that led to the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques.

I'd be more comfortable if I knew precisely what is meant by a "truth commission". If she'd said "independent commission", I may not agree with her, but at least we'd have a term most people understand, and the debate would then be about whether or not a specific commission was "independent", not the more ephemeral debate about what the meaning of "truth" is.

re: #79 CommonCents

Not unlike a small percentage of veterans who are recruited as mouthpieces and trophies for leftist causes. Or a small percentage of active military that would a) roll a grenade in a tent on his commanding officer b) sell fleet plans to al-qaeda c) provide technical details of abrams tanks to jihadis in Iraq d) sell weapons to their Mexican drug dealing buddies. There is no perfect group of people but as a whole the military and veterans are better than other groups. The report is referring to the fringe stragglers not the lot.

That's right -- but you can see that all the spinning and lying about the report has done its work. Right in this thread we have people saying the report smeared ALL veterans as extremists, and it simply did not.

I'll just note that more than one person who was complaining about the report at LGF, upon being asked directly, admitted that they had not even read it for themselves. They were basing their opinions on the words of bloggers and talk show hosts.

re: #80 Russkilitlover

There is real anger at the...audacity...of some of this Admin's actions. It's being personified in right wing crazies, but the anger is much more widespread. Makes us ripe for extreme overreaction.

Similar to the left's anger over the last eight years that led to the election of an extremely left wing government.

re: #81 KenJen

Napolatino made the announcement yesterday. She knew what this reignite the fire. I think this is making some Republican politician look foolish. They need to drop it IMHO.

Meant to re #59 Charles. Is anyone having trouble refreshing LGF? Also spell check not working?

re: #85 Killgore Trout

It's a little different but not much. Specifically speaking, it's identical to the Alex Jones/Ron Paul stuff that has been going on for years.

they are not mainstream conservatives...maybe they are paranoid

re: #93 subsailor68

Ms. Pelosi is kind of an odd duck. Whatever synapses are firing seem to be launching sanity into deep space. Perhaps I'm just sensitive to words and their meanings, but I do find this snippet troubling:

Pelosi renewed her call for a so-called truth commission to investigate the events in the Bush administration that led to the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques.

I'd be more comfortable if I knew precisely what is meant by a "truth commission". If she'd said "independent commission", I may not agree with her, but at least we'd have a term most people understand, and the debate would then be about whether or not a specific commission was "independent", not the more ephemeral debate about what the meaning of "truth" is.

Truth Commission = Blame Bush and the Republicans.

re: #94 Charles

That's right -- but you can see that all the spinning and lying about the report has done its work. Right in this thread we have have people saying the report smeared ALL veterans as extremists, and it simply did not.

I'll just note that more than one person who was complaining about the report at LGF, upon being asked directly, admitted that they had not even read it for themselves. They were relying for their opinions on the words of bloggers and talk show hosts.

Always suspected we had congressional posters here...

re: #93 subsailor68

Freudian slip on her part. She knew she was not telling the truth and it just sort of slipped in there. But most telling is the way she was trying to get the heck outta dodge at the press conference.

re: #88 Honorary Yooper

However, why is Alex Jones now hitching his wagon to Ron Paul and his band on the right after having been for years over with the Troofer left?

Alex and Paul have always been buddies and they have always been far right. The Troofer thing was actually always sort of a right wing thing but it found more fertile ground in the past with the LLL. I find it disgraceful that conservatives have mainstreamed Ron Paul, his fellow travelers from Stormfront and the 9-11 Thruth movement aren't far behind at this point. Glenn Beck is evidence of how insane the mainstream conservative movement has gone.

I recall reading about gov monitoring of gang members joining the military for weapons training, etc.

re: #97 albusteve

they are not mainstream conservatives...maybe they are paranoid

See buzz's #90. I think I agree with him that we've discovered a "wingnut" ideology. They're against the government regardless of whether that government is right or left. If it is right, they'll side with the left, and if it is left, they'll side with the right.

re: #92 Capitalist Tool

That Pelosi can lie faster than she can bat an eye.

I'm listening to clips now. Didn't hear it earlier. She's all over the place trying to cover her tracks.

re: #102 Ben Hur

I recall reading about gov monitoring of gang members joining the military for weapons training, etc.

That was a few years ago and I think they were "somewhat" successful in that respect. They prevented some, and probably drove the rest under ground ( not so good, but unavoidable I guess).

LGF is back. I could get new comments but not open this thread for a while. Reloading go the header, and then it would wait, and wait.
Right now, based on another site, it appears the problem was googlesyndication.
So Charles, you can ignore the email I sent.

re: #94 Charles

Morning Charles. I couldn't agree with you more. My point in 93 was exactly that. Words have meanings, and to (intentionally or otherwise) misinterpret a document is improper regardless of who does so. I did read the doc, and you're absolutely spot on.

re: #98 acwgusa

Truth Commission = Blame Bush and the Republicans.

And that's the truth.
(Lily Tomlin as the little girl)

Aw, Charles down dinged my #3 comment. It was an honest question, I swear.

That's fine. He can down ding me if he wants, its his blog. I'll try not to take it personally if and when it ever happens again.

re: #101 Killgore Trout

I dinged you down as you seem to have missed the point of the discussion. Jones has flip-flopped between right and left over the years. Paul has always been on the right, but the Trofferism that Jones espouses is distinctly fromt he left. Have you missed Zombie's photo essays of the Troofers for the past 7 years? They showed up then with ANSWER and World Can't Wait. Now they're showing up with Ron Paul's band. And excuse me for discounting Stormfront. You attribute too much to them based on their own words. Stormfronters like to take credit for things they have not done, and love to inflate their numbers.

re: #102 Ben Hur

I recall reading about gov monitoring of gang members joining the military for weapons training, etc.

That's one of those gray areas where it can be tricky. We regularly accept foreigners/immigrants into the military who "pledge" to defend the US and it gives them an expedited tract to citizenship. I think it's a good program but that opens the door for infiltration from groups like MS-13 and the drug gangs from Mexico. There is no such thing as fool proof screening.

Let us not forget that there were plenty of Democrats and left-wingers that expressed concern for this, too. It wasn't just the crazy Republicans or right-wingers howling about it.

re: #106 buzzsawmonkey

BTW, HY, consider this: a wingnut must, by definition, have two wings--left and right. Round and round they go; they seem to change sides, but actually they are connected as part of the same thing. Just like "left" and "right" wingnut ideology, which is really all part of the same nuttiness. They may seem to change sides when they're spinning around, but they are still in the same position in relation to each other, and they are both working together.

It sounds very workable. In addition to that, we have the ranters and ravers on the right and the left (Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman coem to mind as two). The wingnuts seem to buddy up with whomever is most willing at the time to give a podium for their nonsense.

re: #110 simonml

Aw, Charles down dinged my #3 comment. It was an honest question, I swear.

That's fine. He can down ding me if he wants, its his blog. I'll try not to take it personally if and when it ever happens again.

He's busy tracking site issues. He not only dinged, he answered you at #32

re: #90 buzzsawmonkey

wingnut ideology.

I subscribe to a wingnut ideology. Game 7 DET v ANA tonight! Go Wings!

re: #78 summergurl

Did you see her press conference? She practically ran away from the podium when it started getting heated. Lots of body language to observe---

She has made a mistake geeting so mouthy about this.

re: #102 Ben Hur

I recall reading about gov monitoring of gang members joining the military for weapons training, etc.

I wonder if that's part of the reasoning behind the military's tattoo regulations. The Navy policy limits the size of tattoos visible on the lower arms (and for women, the lower legs) and prohibits head and neck tattoos that are visible above the collar. The Army prohibits head tattoos but neck tattoos are allowed as long as they're not "extremist, indecent, sexist or racist."

re: #115 unrealizedviewpoint

He's busy tracking site issues. He not only dinged, he answered you at #32

Thanks. I saw. We had a string of a couple comments. Guess he knew what he was doing when he down dinged me. Not just a drive by dinging. haha

I did read the report. I had the feeling this would back fire at Napolatino. I didn't think it was right to release it. I know I differ in opinion but that's how I see it. "No Offense" as Miss CA would say!

re: #120 marge45b

I did read the report. I had the feeling this would back fire at Napolatino. I didn't think it was right to release it.

The report was not released to the public. It was intended as a threat assessment for law enforcement agencies.

re: #116 CommonCents

I subscribe to a wingnut ideology. Game 7 DET v ANA tonight! Go Wings!

My Dad picked the Wings to win the Cup back in December.
For what that's worth.

re: #94 Charles

I'll just note that more than one person who was complaining about the report at LGF, upon being asked directly, admitted that they had not even read it for themselves. They were basing their opinions on the words of bloggers and talk show hosts.

This is somewhat indicative of political dialogue across the spectrum in today's society, and a keen observation. Regardless of your position, you are most likely going to debate someone who has not read appropriate source material on whatever the topic of debate (everything from SCHIP to swine flu).

The sooner one asks the golden "did you read the ___?" question, the sooner one realizes what one is up against in a debate. What one does with this information is another story entirely.

re: #106 buzzsawmonkey

BTW, HY, consider this: a wingnut must, by definition, have two wings--left and right. Round and round they go; they seem to change sides, but actually they are connected as part of the same thing. Just like "left" and "right" wingnut ideology, which is really all part of the same nuttiness. They may seem to change sides when they're spinning around, but they are still in the same position in relation to each other, and they are both working together.

You're saying, I believe, that the fundamental political division isn't between conservatives and liberals, but between the sensible centrists and the insane fringies. Kinda like the difference between the constrained (by sanity?) and unconstrained vision that Sowell postulated and Sharmuta recommends.

I wonder how many here who are criticizing folks who misinterpreted this report would have done the same thing had Charles not provided explanations and directions to read the report. A casual reading of the report for me did not result in much comprehension. But that's just me.

“What there was,” she said, “was an understanding that veterans are sometimes targeted for recruitment..."

Fine. I'll buy that. But one could say that anyone, regardless of background, could be targets of recruitment, so long as they disagree fervently with the current administration, or any other range of topics.

Of course, former military folks likely have desired skills and such.

Frankly, the part about former servicemen didn't bother me that much. It was the allusion that those with disagree with Obama on a range of conservative topics were labelled as potential right wing extremists. And, keep in mind, this was meant to be a tool for local law enforcement on what to look out for. Meanwhile, radical mosques continue to encourage jihad, places like Islamberg don't get mentioned anywhere, and here in Seattle it is illegal for law enforcement to inquire about a detainees immigration status. Pull over a car of foreigners for speeding, and they don't speak English, and Seattle's finest cannot even ask about their status.

Napolitano herself claimed the 9/11 hijackers came from Canada. It's as if she's looking through the cushions of her couch for spare change while criminals are walking out the front door with her purse.

Call it a bad use of language on the part of DHS, but the underlying problems are still glaring.

re: #126 n2stox

Frankly, the part about former servicemen didn't bother me that much. It was the allusion that those with disagree with Obama on a range of conservative topics were labelled as potential right wing extremists.

Can you quote the section of the report that you think does that?

I've read it several times now, and I didn't see any such thing.

re: #126 n2stox

... places like Islamberg don't get mentioned anywhere ...

The "Islamberg" story was completely bogus, promoted by blogs that have very poor records for honesty, and by religious extremists like the Christian Action Network.

The FBI announced that they had no evidence at all that any kind of "jihad training" was happening there.

re: #127 Charles

Can you quote the section of the report that you think does that?

I've read it several times now, and I didn't see any such thing.

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

"Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures."

--Weren't these, until recently, topics for the rabid left over the last 8 years? Heck, 20 years? Go to some of the SeattlePI blogs, and this stuff is all they talk about. Of course, they pin the blame on conservatives, but that's a different point entirely.

The first paragraph says it all:

"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues."

The report clearly spells out many factors that groups could use to recruit: economic recession, outsourcing jobs, the perceived threat to US sovereignty, weapons bans, abortion, the election of our first black POTUS.

I am concerned about US sovereignty, recession, immigration, preserving the 2nd Ammendment, but there has to be other factors not mentioned that lead folks to join militias, because I'm not in one, nor could I ever see myself in one.

The report states "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Ok, I'm not in the first group. I clearly favor state authority over Federal (and I live in uber liberal WA state, but I still believe states should decides what goes). I do have strong feelings on the 2nd Ammendment, certain aspects of immigration, taxes, and probably a few others I'm forgetting right now. So I guess that puts me into the last 2 groups. So, for example, if I belong to some group that supports the 2nd ammendment, by their definition of my political view, I am a strong candidate for a right wing extremist.

If you dissect that sentence, it reads: "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are ... in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

So, by this definition, is the Club for Growth a right wing extremist organization? The Heritage Foundation? National Review?

Note one thing missing: the fact that these groups have strong political thoughts, AND the means and desire to commit violence to obtain their vision. No mention of the violence, just the ideology.

That's what bothers me the most.

re: #129 n2stox

Sheesh. All of the quotes you posted are saying exactly the opposite of what you think.

They DO NOT say that all people who hold those views are right wing extremists. They say that right wing extremists often hold those views.

re: #129 n2stox

It may include

What is it you don't understand about the word "may" ?

I never believed there was actual Jihad training in Islamberg.

Of course there were the reports of what sounded like small arms training and so forth, but I hear the same thing at my gun range.

What I'm getting at is that how is that any different than some other religious or militia compound somewhere in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho?

It's been reported that Islamberg's founder, Gilani, was also one of the founders of Jamaat al-Fuqra and that DC sniper John Allen Muhammad had connections, but who knows. Of course, Gilani was the person Daniel Pearl was going to interview the day he was murdered. Gilani was questioned and released. The guy probably isn't the next KSM.

My point is (was?) that people have a right to have their viewpoints and live them out without being called radical, unless, of course, they are radical and pose serious threat. It's not their personal beliefs that bother me, it's the question of the threat. If someone wants to start a compound somewhere, and follow applicable laws, I say have at it.

Heck, there have been times where I want to do the same.

A big hand to Michelle Malkin for fanning the flames of this "controversy" and spouting out the fox-news talking points on this.

sigh

Charles,

Parts of the report are correct. I mis-wrote that part.

Here is what I meant:
the part that says:

The first paragraph says it all:

"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues."

I believe is 100% spot on perfect. I wholeheartedly agree with that. Any radical group will use current events to get $, recruits, attention, and whatever else.

Regarding the term "may." I understand it perfectly. It's like saying there "may be a UFO in area 51." Or, "there may be life on other planets." You'll never be wrong by using the term, but what are you saying. In essence, nothing.

Like many readers have noted in previous postings from a few weeks ago, the report offers little to law enforcement. It's the kind of report, that if something were to happen 2 years from now, some politico can point to it and say "see, we saw it coming. We just didn't connect the dots." or something similar.

But, it doesn't point to anything. It talks mostly of political viewpoints, and says little about any potential violence. It seems they're more concerned with certain viewpoints, that's all.

If you inserted CAIR instead of right wing extremists and crazyass pseudo patriots, I'd say their tactics of intimidating people from publishing the truth was just about spot on. Shame on Janet Napolitano from doing anything but confirming they are, indeed, all nut jobs.

Is Tiny Minority of Extremists out of fashion these days?

re: #134 n2stox

But, it doesn't point to anything. It talks mostly of political viewpoints, and says little about any potential violence. It seems they're more concerned with certain viewpoints, that's all.

It's talking about EXTREMISTS who may be motivated to acts of EXTREMISM by those viewpoints, or a version thereof. Case in point being, obviously, Timothy McVeigh. That is exactly the type of person DHS is concerned about, and rightly so.

The whole thing is ridiculous. This new chief of the DHS is incompetent. It's one thing to be alert on the typical neo-Nazi pukes who try to stir crap up, but to release such a provocative memo insulting the very people who are employed to defend us from such activity is very understandably frustrating to a whole bunch of people.

It's not just a simple "WAHH WAHH Right vs. Left" issue you appear to make it out to be.

re: #137 Grand Poobah

It's one thing to be alert on the typical neo-Nazi pukes who try to stir crap up, but to release such a provocative memo insulting the very people who are employed to defend us...

The DHS report did not insult anyone. It was very explicit in stating that only "a small percentage" of veterans might be susceptible to recruitment by extremists.

But go ahead and keep feeling insulted, if that floats your boat.

I believe in Limited Government and Constitutional Rights. Because of Crappy Nappy's STUPID statement, I guess I'm one of those who should be watched.

/shrugs_shoulders

Just curious: Does the fact this report was "not intended for public consumption" (but, obviously, hit the street while it was still warm) make us feel better about its contents or worse (since it demonstrates what they don't want the public to know they think)?

Since these things all tend to make it into the public view anyway (1st amendment and all, and the number of legit viewers numbering in the scads), I would've thought: no difference. But there seems to be a lot of emphasis placed on this, so - just thought I'd ask.

re: #140 auldtrafford

Just curious: Does the fact this report was "not intended for public consumption" (but, obviously, hit the street while it was still warm) make us feel better about its contents or worse (since it demonstrates what they don't want the public to know they think)?

Since these things all tend to make it into the public view anyway (1st amendment and all, and the number of legit viewers numbering in the scads), I would've thought: no difference. But there seems to be a lot of emphasis placed on this, so - just thought I'd ask.

It makes no difference to my opinion that the outrage over it was ridiculously exaggerated. I only keep pointing it out because it keeps coming up in every thread -- "I can't believe they released this report in such a state!"

The fact is -- they DIDN'T release it to the public. It's just one more in a long string of exaggerations, distortions, and misconceptions.

re: #136 negativ

It's talking about EXTREMISTS who may be motivated to acts of EXTREMISM by those viewpoints, or a version thereof. Case in point being, obviously, Timothy McVeigh. That is exactly the type of person DHS is concerned about, and rightly so.

So, we need a report saying "look out for extremists?" or other McVeighs or Rudolphs? Please. That is a far cry from them having one iota of intelligence that might point to such an occurrence.

The report is simply supposition.

Taken from US News, comparing this DHS report with the one on Left Wing Extremism:

The Napolitano report, first and foremost, includes no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence but is written in contemplation by the Department of Homeland Security that "The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization."

The earlier report, Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade, focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities.

And it cites specific examples, something the Napolitano report, with the exception of references to the Oklahoma City bombing (which is cast as a reason to be concerned about returning veterans), fails to do in anything resembling the same level of detail. The earlier report on left-wing extremism cites cyber attacks as being "attractive options to leftwing extremists who view attacks on economic targets as aligning with their nonviolent, no harm" doctrine and tactic of "direction action.

And to support this claim, DHS offers up the following: "The North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office, the media arm of the Earth Liberation front (ELF), published the following guidance for activists: 'By inflicting as much economic damage as possible, the ELF can allow a given entity to decide it is in their [sic] best economic interest to stop destroying life for the sake of profit.'"

And, also in support of its thesis, the earlier report documents several specific actions committed by liberal organizations that included the deletion of user accounts and flooding a company's servers with E-mails.

"On 13 July 2007, an animal rights extremist hacked into a U.S. company's computer system and deleted more than 300 associates' user accounts. To restore the accounts, the perpetrator demanded that the company sell its shares in a corporation that conducts tests using animal subjects," the report says.

And there's more. "In October 2005, animal rights extremists launched an e-mail attack against a Milwaukee, Wisconsin firm that held stock in an animal testing laboratory. The firm subsequently sold its shares in the laboratory, with losses it estimated at approximately $1.4 million."

The report on threats to cyberspace from left-wing extremist groups even goes so far as to identify national organizations that "seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans" by name: the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty, and chapters within the Animal Defense League. It also identifies groups it refers to as "Anarchist extremists" who, the report says, "generally embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements."

The groups, DHS says, "seek abolition of social, political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals," identifying by name Crimethinc, the Ruckus Society, and Recreate 68.

Quite a difference, I'd say.