I complained when former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano was appointed to head up Homeland Security, by President Barack Obama, because she is not exactly friendly towards immigrants, but she is now in the headlines for a different reason. It turns out she is a complete idiot!
Here are a few excerpts from the Washington Times that explain exactly how Napolitano managed to stick both of her feet in her mouth:
Civil-liberties watchdogs within the Homeland Security Department (DHS) raised concerns about a security assessment of “rightwing extremism” but the report was released anyway, leading to the furor that Thursday had Secretary Janet Napolitano apologizing to veterans.
Ms. Napolitano appeared on several morning news shows in an effort to damp down criticism on both sides of the political aisle over the report, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” which states that veterans are likely recruits for use in attacks against the government.
“I know that some veterans groups were offended by the fact that veterans were mentioned in this assessment, so I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended,” Miss Napolitano told CNN’s “American Morning.”
So much for the sentiment that the Democrats support our troops! The war in Iraq is wrong, but saying that our returning veterans are going to take up arms and attack their fellow Americans is ridiculous.
Napolitano should resign immediately.
Yeah, let’s PRETEND that there isn’t any precedent for veterans being involved in terrorist acts, it’s not like Tim McVeigh or Terry Nichols were veterans or anything.
*Hey anonster….you forgot Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman in the Texas Tower too! OK, that’s four guys out of 17 million. Not bad…what are those odds? Anyway, everyone knows there are more Mexican and Columbian Drug Cartel Gang Members who will cry discrimination if “they” are investigated. It will be a lot safer checking on returning veterans working at the local Ralphs! We get it!
this lady is another one of NOBAMAS CLOWNS .. AND TO POST 1 . ALL MUSLIMS ARENT TERRORIST .BUT EVERY TERRORIST SEEMS TO BE A MUSLIM .?
If we use the the logic of Travis and the Winships, we would monitor NOONE. Is that what you people are advocating?
It’s unfortunate ,but true, that many veterans are troubled souls, some abuse alcohol or drugs and others show signs of anger and even mental illness. Just like in a Ven Diagram, you start culling out people according to “risk” factors. It’s NEVER going to be a perfect science, but it has been successful in preventing some violent acts.
You can’t be among those cheering on the surveillance state of the last 8 years (either vocally, or by your silence) and then join an orgy of “outrage” when that state turns its eyes on you.
And where was the outrage from conservatives while this was happening?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?_r=1
anonster. The biggest fear Americans have is their representatives inside the beltway where they didn’t bother to read a 1,008 page budget which was almost $one billion dollars per page.
Returning veterans are not the problem. The failure in Homeland Security can all be found in Congress, when they are not off on a junket somewhere.
anon.
Sorry but I do not read the “fair and balanced” coverage of the NY Times.
Open your mind and look beyond the Keith Olbermann and Daily Kos schools of left wing knowledge.
Larry,
So are you saying that the reporting contained in that article is inaccurate?
And if so, do you have proof of that?
To use one of your own “classic Larry lines” ; this post is not about the budget, harumph.
Are YOU suggesting that Homeland Security NOT monitor veterans even if they feel they could pose a RISK to other Americans?
Respectfully, I think the 168 dead and over 800 injured victims of DOMESTIC TERRORISM that occurred at the hands of Tim McVeigh, would disagree with you.
anon.
No, I did not read the LA Times report. Let me state that I have had concerns about Homeland Security intrusion into our civil liberties ever since 9-11. For the record. The president was a Republican named George Bush 43. Therefore I am not profiling Democrats for those who continue to call me a right wing extremist.
Larry,
Well then why engage in such a ridiculous, knee-jerk dismissal of that article? You just make yourself look like the very partisans you criticize.
Dude, that response in #8 was really weak.
#10 anonster.
While I have the 9 page Unclassified /For official use only document, it reads in part that “no portion of the LES information should be released to the media…etc”. I therefore will not comment further.
Disgrunteld veterans? How many returning veterans from the Viet Nam war were spit on when they came home? Did you organize a parade in your city for them?
Were they profiled as being dangerous with skills to kill and maim people?
How many Viet vet’s can still be found begging on freeway ramps for food?
Have you bothered to read the following:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized Thursday after some veterans groups were offended by a department report about right-wing extremism.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized to offended veterans Thursday morning.
The report said extremist groups may try to attract veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also said extremists also may use the recession and the election of the nation’s first African-American president to recruit members.
The American Legion was among those who objected to the report’s mention of veterans.
“I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are,” the American Legion’s national commander, David K. Rehbein, said in a letter to Napolitano.
Napolitano apologized on CNN on Thursday morning.
“I know that some veterans groups were offended by the fact that veterans were mentioned in this assessment, so I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended,” she told CNN..”
You haven’t addressed the question Larry, SHOULD WE IGNORE VETERANS IF THEY POSE A RISK TO OTHER AMERICANS?
I think your “political correctness” is blinding you to the risk factors and the vulnerabilities of veterans that can sometimes lead to violence.
STOP bringing up RED-HERRINGS, what do Vietnam vets being “spit on” have to do with the issue at hand?
Anonster,
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Just look at the trenchant response Larry offered to me in #8.
After the Pogroms start, where will the Gulags be located?
anon #15, I know, I’m tilting at windmills.
Art, you’re leaping to outrage (not P-C! not P-C! )too quick without thinking. In this case “You’re attacking veterans!”. I was a marine officer; I know this very well; we get a cross-cut from every section of American society, including our contingent of wacko’s … and we teach them how to shoot accurately from long distances, and how to handle explosives. Let me name a few: Charles Whitman, ex-marine, who climbed the Texas Tower at the U-T and shot a lot of people; Timothy McVeigh, army gunner on a Bradley fighting, who blew up the Federal Bldg in Okie City; Oswald, ex-marine who shot JFK. Napolitano’s correct in saying we have to watch out for wacko’s who are ex-military; they’re dangerous. It’s a shell game to say this means the same as veterans are wacko’s.
If you take the time to really read the report it is CLEARLY Written in a way to belittle the thoughts of those who disagree witht eh Federal Government. Period by their definition, you are a “right wing extremist” if you oppose Federal Government power in favor of State and Local Control. That is Scary Now Annonster, anon, and you suckers are jumping in to act like there is NO 10th Ammendment, and that people who exercise their legal and lawful rights are somehow a threat to the safety of out country.
SAHS Teacher,
It is wrong for Democrats to demonize Veterans just as it is wrong for Republicans to demonize Mexicans.
anonster.
I thought we are not profiling Americans.
As I think about terrorists in America it brings back memories of a few who were pardoned by presidennt Bill Clinton. Do you know who I am referring to?
We now plan to monitor American hero’s because tthey happen to be labeled “right wing eextremists” by this administration.
Let me take you back in time to another Democratic administration that had an entirely different view of terrorists:
“August 1999, President Clinton offered to commute the sentences of 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (a Spanish acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation). It was FALN that was responsible for the Fraunces Tavern attack, as well as over 100 bombings during the 1970s and 1980s, largely in New York and Chicago.
Clinton’s move set off a firestorm at the time, leading the first lady, then running for the Senate in New York, to distance herself from her husband. It also ultimately resulted in a 95-2 Senate measure that condemned the clemencies and called them “deplorable.” Nevertheless, 11 former FALN members were freed soon afterward, and they returned to their homes in Chicago and Puerto Rico.”
Yup. Let’s target the men and women of our armed forces who put their lives on the line at a higher risk then the men in blue while giving real terrorists a pass. What changed to warrant this paranoia?
What next. Have our children spy on their parents as happened in Germany?
anon.
My above comment #21 may apply to your #12 charge of a “knee jerk” reaction.
Your barking up the wrong tree.
I guess we should also keep our eyes on the “men in blue” who do carry weapons. These sworn men and women might include some “right wing extremist” Republicans who are not happy campers.
The Marine Grunt Teach and Anonster: Hey guys…
which one of you fired Expert? You might be very dangerous if you fired Expert on the Rifle Range.
Forget the Korean kid that went ballistic and killed his friends and teachers at West Virginia.
Forget the 14 year old that just killed most of his family…and friends.
We remind you…..4 prior service guys go off the rails and you are ready to put a GPS chip on every one of the remaining 17 million of us that got there and got back. What would Mr. Anonster
suggest: Interviewing every Prior Service person and evaluating their Psychosis potential?
I hate the term, “Homeland Security”. It sounds like something from Nazi Germany. I want it changed.
Red.
If Americans are not careful we will go down that road.
We’re only doing this to protect our leaders. Sure!
Let’s send all the outspoken citizens, aka right wing extremists, to a camp in Siberia for thinking they have a Bill of Rights. We will tell you what rights you have, or think you may still have. We are now calling the shots.
I think that is a little over the top, Larry. Just because the other side won the last election, does not mean that people like me would let my fellow citizens be rounded up into some kind of camps. won’t happen.
But in changing the “Homeland” thing, many small contractors could get a boost in this hard economy. Think of all the re-printing of materials, stationary, shirts, signage etc… that would need to be done.
I still cannot believe that Department of Homeland was taken up by the Bush administration with so little resistance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland
In German, homeland is translated as “Heimatland”, and this was a term used by the Nazis to refer to the more common German term “Vaterland” (“Fatherland”). It was also the name of a strongly pro-Nazi magazine edited by Wilhelm Weiss during the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.
Red. I have spoken to many Republicans who were not happy with the post 9-11 Homeland Security impact on our freedom and liberties. The “checks and balance” of this agency can surely be debated
Winships, Larry, Art and other assorted kooks, I know reading is not your strong suit, but their is an excellent guest editorial in today’s NYT’s by Charles M. Blow entitled; The Enemies Within.
Here’s an excerpt;
“A report issued last summer by former President Bush’s F.B.I. entitled “White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11” said that “military experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement” and that these groups “have attempted to increase their recruitment of current and former U.S. military personnel.”
I know, I know, facts schmacts and who gives a damn about the FBI, what do they know any way.
I don’t want your teeny brains to explode, but here’s a little more;
“So, which soldiers are most vulnerable? According to the Homeland Security report, it would probably be those “facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities.”……
According to a Rand study released on Friday, 300,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan reported some sign of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression. …… These soldiers could prove fertile ground for men hoping to prey on their fear, loneliness and depression. …….
And those extremist leaders may be able to connect more easily with some of these soldiers because many were soldiers themselves. According to the F.B.I. report “although individuals with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, they frequently occupy leadership roles.” …..
If they only recruit a few, that is still too many. Terrorists have shown the world time and again that a few well trained men is all it takes.”
anonster.
Kooks! Are you multi-tasking? Looking in the mirror as your fingers are on your keyboard?
anonster.
Yes, we do need to keep tabs on former soldiers like William C Cantrell. Do you know who he is?
Quantrill was killed in 1865 during a raid in Kentucky. However, he quickly became a celebrated figure of the Civil War from the southern perspective. He was a hero to his supporters in Missouri, and his fame actually helped several other outlaw figures of the Old West. The James Brothers and the Youngers used the experienced they gained riding with Quantrill to help them rob banks and trains. Members of his Raiders gathered from 1888 to 1929 to recount their war efforts.
Larry, what about the F.B.I.’s opinion that veterans are being recruited? No, you won’t answer that, because it’s much EASIER to throw out some IRRELEVANT, ANTIQUATED, POINTLESS factoid than to address the REAL facts.
*Hey, the CIA thought Lee Harvey Oswald was worth recruiting….who knows “anonster”? Circling the Wagons and looking under every bed for someone dressed in a “White Sheet”….can be a little too time consuming for most. But of course, when it comes to the Government….”their time is your time”…and they really could care less. It’s nice that people enjoy reading those Government Reports….perhaps you should have done so, regarding WACO, Whitewater and The Chinese Connection. Probably all a bunch a bull…..anyway…just like your recent “chasing rainbows” FBI report. As they used to say in the Army: “Don’t get pissed…re-enlist!” and “Then take your Bonus to CONUS!”
Winships, one can only conclude from YOUR arguments, that;
1. We should NOT moniter ANY group and or person.
2. That the CIA and the FBI are incompetent and useless orginizations that should be eliminated.
I know logic isn’t your strong suit, but is this REALLY YOUR stance?
Anonster. Returning vet’s are being recruited by whom? Move On and Americans United for Change!
Larry, why don’t you JUST take the time and READ the article in the NYT’s, I think it shows that even the FBI knows it is RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST GROUPS that are trying to recruit vulnerable vets. All your denials and deflection tactics, WON’T CHANGE THE FACTS.
anonster.
I’ll read the NY Times when you start reading the Washington Times.
Larry,
Why not read both? I enjoy reading articles from many newspapers, via http://www.calnews.com and Google news. I enjoy both the New York Times AND the Washington Times…
Larry, I never suggested that you read the entire NYT’s, just ONE article, I HAVE taken the time to read articles YOU have referenced. Perhaps I should thank you, for proving once again that right-wingers tend to be ignorant and closed-minded individuals.
anonster.
Whenever you cannot win an argument you raise your voice and show disrespect for opposing viewpoints and engage in namecalling.
You do have a lot of class.
Larry, I at least don’t rely on avoidance as a form of debate.
O my God liberials are really a bunch of wack jobs.And the wacko’s are running washington. hahahaha
Yea are returning vets really have the time to become right wing extremists :);)
what are the going to do pray you all to death!!
since the lib’s think all right wingers are bible thumping rednecks.
I really like your blog site Art, its hilarious!!
Well, at least those who know what war is like and willing to support our troops no matter what are willing to put their names on these boards. Vietnam Vet’s went in under LBJ’s orders. That’s all troops do. They follow orders. I have family members and friends in the military and I don’t agree sometimes with where they go but I still support them. My father-in-law is a Vietnam Vet and I know plenty of others that served in Vietnam. They are not terrorists. Gangs are more terrorists than our Veterans are. Show some pride and support for our troops even if they are fighting a war you don’t agree with. At least they are fighting, and will fight, for what is deemed “right” by leaders of our nation. If we focus on fighting gangs and cartels on our own home front, maybe you would have a better out look for veterans.