Following up on Heather's post about McCain and Lieberman's desire for action against Libya, the neocons are starting to chant for more action. In an amazing show of bravado, a group of forty political analysts, including more than a dozen former officials of former President GW Bush, have posted a letter in the Foreign Policy Initiative website calling for President Obama to bring some "American exceptionalism" in the form of gunboat diplomacy to Libya. It really is amazingly idiotic drivel for such Very Serious People to voice.

Therefore, we recommend the United States, in conjunction with NATO allies, take the following specific actions immediately:
 
1) The United States should call upon NATO to develop operational plans to urgently:

• Establish a presence in Libyan airspace to prevent the continued use of fighter jets and helicopter gunships against civilians and carry out other missions as required.
• Move naval assets into Libyan waters to aid in evacuation efforts and prepare for possible contingencies. Establish the capability to disable Libyan naval vessels used to attack civilians.

2)     Freeze all Libyan government assets in the United States and Europe.

3)     Consider temporarily halting importation of Libyan oil to the United States and Europe.

4)     Make a clear statement that Col. Qaddafi and other officials who order and participate in massacres of civilians will be held accountable for their crimes under international law.

5)     Provide humanitarian aid to the Libyan people as quickly as possible.

Yes, because our military was so successful in combat operations against Iraq and Afghanistan, why not just add another Arab nation to the list of "people we really didn't like anyway, and oh yeah, damn the massive projected spike in oil prices, full speed ahead." You will not be surprised to see that the list of characters is very similar to the original PNAC crowd, the ones who thought in 1998 that overthrowing Iraq through US unilateral force was such a great idea. What jackasses.

In the interest of academic fairness, it would be good to know who the FPI signatories believe we should help in Libya. Should we just drop boxes of automatic rifles and ammunition on the beaches near Benghazi? There are no carriers in the Med, should we divert one or two and station it off the coast? Do we shoot down the defecting Libyan air force pilots as well as those straffing the cities? What if the Libyans see our actions as an attack against them and not just the regime? The rest of the world seems to be capable of getting their own citizens out of the country without the use of force. 

It is a good thing, however, for these villains to sign their names so freely. It's important to know who the people are who would so freely loose violence upon the world for the sake of their false ideology, spilling US blood and treasure without any thought of the potential fallout on civilization.

[I'm cross-posting this from Orcinus, where Sara Robinson, my longtime cohort, put this up. See dday for more.]

-- by Sara

Progressives around the country can breathe a little easier today: James Adkisson has been sentenced to life behind bars for the deaths of Greg McKendry and Linda Kraeger, the Unitarian Universalist martyrs who died during his assault on their church in Knoxville, TN last July.

Many of us intuited at the time that Adkisson's rampage was exactly the kind of rancid fruit that would inevitably take root in an American countryside thickly composted with two decades of hate radio bullshit, freshly turned and watered with growing middle-class frustration over the failing economy. That suspicion that was verified in the days that followed, when police searched Adkisson's apartment and found it filled with books and newsletters penned by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and other right-wing hate talkers.

But Monday, Adkisson told us himself -- in his own words -- just how central right-wing eliminationism was in driving him to his shooting spree. Shortly after he was sentenced Monday, he released a four-page handwritten "manifesto" -- which he'd intended to be his suicide note -- to the Knoxville News (the full .pdf can be downloaded here). In it, he unleashes the full measure of his hatred for liberals -- and encourages other would-be right-wing warriors to take up arms and follow him into battle.

Some choice excerpts:

"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

"This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."

"I thought I'd do something good for this Country Kill Democrats til the cops kill me....Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals.

No doubt this manifesto is being blogged, mailed, twittered, and otherwise littered across the far-right infosphere today, and Adkisson will likely emerge from this as a new hero of the extreme right wing. (He's obviously articulate and literate, which means we may expect more of these bilious rants coming out of his cell in the years ahead.) It also seems likely that, probably sooner rather than later, other victims of our curdled economy will accept his charge, pick up their guns, and attempt to follow him into battle.

Nicely done, Messrs. Hannity, Goldberg, Limbaugh, Savage and O'Reilly -- and all your lesser brethren who keep the hate speech spewing 24/7/365 across every field and into every shop in the country. There is no more debate to be had, no more doubt about it: What you did in the name of "entertainment," and for the sake of the almighty ratings, raised and animated a monster like Jim Adkisson, gave him a list of targets ("the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book"), and was directly responsible for the deaths of two brave and decent people. Adkisson was clearly angry and crazy -- but his "manifesto" draws the clearest, brightest line possible between the media he consumed and his actions that terrible Sunday morning.

Continue reading »

Back when moderate Republicans were more numerous and had control of the party's discussion, they could be counted upon to develop some fairly sound national security guidance. Here's one of those moments:

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.

Not many people would recognize President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1953 "Chance for Peace" speech delivered after the death of Joseph Stalin. If you had to name five principles of grand strategy that the Republican neocons had resolutely determined they would not ever follow, in particular with regards to the Middle East, I don't think you could come up with a better list.

Eisenhower used the moment to call for the "reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world." He wanted arms control agreements, not just on atomic weapons but on conventional forces, understanding that more federal funds spent on defense meant less federal funds spent on fighting poverty and need. He would later follow up the sentiment of this speech with his more famous "Fairwell Address" in 1961, fifty years ago this week, where he warned about a "military-industrial complex" and a "scientific-technological elite" that could overly tip the balance of federal funds toward defense solutions and away from the "national welfare of the future." You just can't find Republicans like Ike anymore.

Hat tip to Cheryl at Phronesisaiscal.

On Monday, ADM Mike Mullen told a crowd at the National Defense University that he was concerned about the civil-military "disconnect" - that the military was in danger of being out of touch with the American public, who appears disinterested in defense affairs. This recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal made me wonder if Mullen (and other military leaders) are aware of just how much that "disconnect" is self-induced. In this op-ed, two former veterans and directors of Vets for Freedom (the right-wing version of VetVoice) call for awarding GEN David Petraeus a fifth star - because he's been just an awesome leader.

The U.S. war against terrorism is now the longest war in U.S. history, and Gen. Petraeus has clearly distinguished himself as a leader worthy of the rank held by Gens. MacArthur, Marshall and Nimitz. A promotion would properly honor his service—and it would also honor the troops he leads and has led. Today's soldiers have fought as valiantly as any in American history, and they deserve recognition of their leaders. Congressional approval of a fifth star would demonstrate the nation's commitment to their mission.

Gen. Petraeus is also a soldier-statesmen who works with foreign diplomats and generals in hot spots across the globe. The prestige that would come with a fifth star would help the U.S. in its negotiations with neighboring states—and show the enemies of freedom that we are fully committed to the war against terrorism.

It has been more than half a century since a U.S. general was awarded a fifth star. David Petraeus's generalship has spanned 11 years, three presidents and seven Congresses. It is time to promote him to "General of the Army" and award him a fifth star. Our military deserves it, and he has certainly earned it.

Now, let's state up front that Petraeus is a very smart, talented military officer. He didn't get four stars by sitting on his ass or by being a sycophant. He's had a distinguished military career and led the 101st Infantry Division (Airborne) through Iraq in 2003, quietly observing "How will this end?" He is certainly a personable character, which has led many Republican pundits to suggest his candidacy for president in 2012 (something I believe he will wisely decline, understanding his own limitations).

But inflating his achievements really isn't doing anyone any good. His leadership in developing FM 3-24, "Counterinsurgency" has both ardent admirers and detractors, but it hardly was the "blueprint" for Teh Surge that "saved Iraq from the brink of calamity." One might question if US forces in Afghanistan follow its dictums at all, considering the heavy use of airpower and failure of "population-centric" operations to stabilize the region. Iraq's civil conflicts are certainly not over, the borders with Iran and Syria are still leaking, so I guess it depends what you call "normalcy in Iraq" that the authors of the op-ed attribute to Petraeus.

Continue reading »

Trying to respond to the insane eruption of self-revealing wingnuttery over that Department of Homeland Security bulletin outlining the coming wave of right-wing domestic terrorism, Janet Napolitano went on CNN this morning to talk it over with John King on "State of the Union":

NAPOLITANO: Here is the important point. The report is not saying that veterans are extremists. Far from it. What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that.

And again, I regret that in the politicization of everything that happens in Washington, D.C., some people took offense, but when you read the report, what it was saying -- what it was saying is, look, we have a threat of terrorism within our own shores, and one of the groups being targeted to see if they will be aligned with that are some of our veterans. Let's make sure we prevent that.

KING: Do you regret the politicization, or do you regret the choice of words by your department? Could it have been written better, to maybe reduce the politicization?

NAPOLITANO: In retrospect, anything could have been written differently to prevent politicization, but I think any fair reading of the report says this is very consistent with other reports that have been issued before, they were issued before Obama was president, they're being issued now. They're meant to give people what is called situational awareness, and they're certainly not intended to give offense, far from it.

This confirms our earlier reportage, as well as our more thorough analysis of the bulletin and the response to it.

Finally, and most on the tip of wingnut tongues, is the claim that the report "singles out" all returning veterans as potential recruits for right-wing extremists. In reality, the report only singles out returning veterans who become active in violent hate groups.

Here's the actual language of the report:

U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

This is, in fact, precisely accurate -- and as we pointed out from the get-go, this is the view not merely of DHS, but of the FBI. A July 2008 assessment of the situation by the FBI (titled White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel Since 9/11) found that the numbers of identifiable neo-Nazis within the ranks was quite small (only a little over 200), but warned:

Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color.

... The prestige which the extremist movement bestows upon members with military experience grants them the potential for influence beyond their numbers. Most extremist groups have some members with military experience, and those with military experience often hold positions of authority within the groups to which they belong.

... It's important to understand how FBI investigations into these kinds of activities take place: The FBI is constrained by DOJ guidelines that do not allow them to investigate organizations merely because of incendiary rhetoric or politically worrisome beliefs. They only open investigations into the activities of members of such groups when there is evidence of actual criminal activity.

And it's at that time that the presence of an extremist with a military background becomes not merely relevant, but potentially important.

DOWNLOAD (1008)

PLAY (1272)

An astonishing thing seems to have happened to the case of Richard Poplawski and the three dead Pittsburgh policemen: It's been turned into a story about dog pee -- and not about the fact that Poplawski was fueled by a toxic mix of white-supremacist/conspiracy-theorist paranoia and mainstream-media fearmongering, including from the likes of Glenn Beck and Fox News.

Maybe the media are collectively embarrassed by the way this case demonstrates how they play an important role in whipping up the far-right crazies out there -- and they should be. Because not only did Richard Poplawski avidly participate in white-supremacist online forums and right-wing conspiracy-theory sites, he also avidly consumed mainstream conservative media, particularly Fox.

The classic instance of this: A few weeks ago, Poplawski posted a clip of Beck talking about FEMA concentration camps on the neo-Nazi Stormfront forum site. (You can see the clip from the show in question above.)

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters noticed yesterday that the New York Times completely ignored the white-supremacy aspect of the story, running an AP story that only briefly alluded to Poplawski's paranoiac fears and instead focused on the dog-pee-on-the-carpet angle. David Waldman at Daily Kos noted a similar trend.

MSNBC, which ran the same story, had this for a headline:

Meanwhile, Mark Pitcavage at the Anti-Defamation League published his findings Monday:

-- Poplawski believed that the federal government, the media, and the banking system are all largely or completely controlled by Jews. He thought African-Americans were "vile" and non-white races inferior to whites.

-- He also believed that a conspiracy led by "evil Zionists" and "greedy traitorous goyim" was "ramping up" a police state in the United States for malign purposes.

-- Web sites like the neo-Nazi Stormfront forums and the anti-government conspiracy Infowars site fueled his racist, anti-Semitic, and conspiratorial mindset.

... Poplawski bought into the SHTF/TEOTWAKI [S--t Hits The Fan/The End Of The World As We Know It] conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker, even posting a link to Stormfront of a YouTube video featuring talk show host Glenn Beck talking about FEMA camps with Congressman Ron Paul. When the city of Pittsburgh got a Homeland Security grant to add surveillance cameras to protect downtown bridges, Poplawski told Stormfronters that it was "ramping up the police state." He said, too, that he gave warnings to grocery store customers he encountered (but only if they were white) to stock up on canned goods and other long-lasting foods.

Well, at least Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- who was one of the first reporters on this story -- carried most of the details and more in his Monday story:

Accused cop-killer Richard Poplawski spent hours posting racist messages on an extremist right-wing Web site, decrying blacks and Latinos and warning of forthcoming economic collapse fueled by the "Zionist occupation" of America, an expert in political extremism has determined. Earlier, he had praised the "AK" rifle as his ideal weapon.

It was an AK-47 that police say Mr. Poplawski used to gun down three Pittsburgh police officers who arrived at his house Saturday morning in the midst of a domestic dispute.

An account kept on Stormfront, a gathering place for racial extremists and others from the far-right show Mr. Poplawski's increasing belief in a coming economic and political collapse in the days leading up to the time of the deadly standoff in which he is charged with killing three Pittsburgh police officers.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (885)

PLAY (578)

You have to wonder if right-wingers will ever get it: Difference isn't a threat.

They were mewling like wounded hyenas this weekend after some of us pointed out that there was a direct connection between the irresponsible fearmongering in which they've been indulging since Barack Obama was elected and Saturday's tragedy in Pittsburgh.

Michelle Malkin, for example, whined to her cultlike audience that liberals were being mean to them: "You killed these police officers. It’s all your fault." As Oliver notes, the Instawanker has been thrashing about angrily too.

My favorite, though, was Neil Sheppard at Newsbusters:

Let's be clear what these attacks on folks like Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are all about -- the left-wing in our nation want to silence ALL opposing voices in the media, and they will do it using all tools at their disposal INCLUDING blaming journalists and political commentators for the criminal behavior of others.

This is a familiar refrain that comes up every time anyone raises a socially damning issue like this one: We're trying to oppress them, to silence their voices, by pointing out how morally and ethically bankrupt they are.

Actually, we're just pointing out how bankrupt they are. No one here has said anything about silencing their voices -- we just want them to face up to the consequences of their irresponsible rhetoric. It's called culpability: They obviously are not criminally culpable, nor likely even civilly culpable. But they are morally and ethically culpable.

We do have serious differences of opinion here. We strongly believe that there's a clear, common-sense connection between the paranoiac fearmongering that has passed for right-wing rhetoric since well before Obama's election (and has become acute since) and violence like that in Pittsburgh, or in Knoxville: horrifying tragedies, in which the sources of the criminal's unambiguous motives are that very same hysterical fearmongering -- whether it's about the evil socialists, stinking immigrants, or conspiring gun-grabbers who've taken over the country since Election Day.

Continue reading »

Just about all the Village teevee bobbleheads -- especially the Foxheads -- have been trying to find ways to shuffle the blame for the economic disaster now upon us onto the man Americans hired to fix the problem: Barack Obama.

It seemed like everywhere you turned a couple of weeks ago, we were hearing about the "Obama Bear Market." Mind you, they were positively gleeful about it; after all, they know their own future success hinges on Barack Obama's failure. And it worked for a little while: the mau-mauing over Obama's recovery plan certainly didn't help the market.

But now that we're at over 8,000 again? Crickets. That's all we hear.

So now they're crying "socialism" -- or is it "fascism"? -- and hysterically warning against One World Government. I think we can all see the direction this is heading, and it's not a healthy one.

The public sees it too: A Washington Post poll reveals some unpleasant truths for the right-wing pundits who pat themselves on the backs for keeping the flock of True Believers who plump up their ratings, these masters of the media who wield the power to alter public opinion.

Because it ain't working anymore. The rest of the world is gradually abandoning them:

Media Matters has more:

The Washington Post/ABC News poll, released on March 31, asked respondents who they thought "deserve[d]" the most "blame" for "the country's economic situation." Results for who deserved a "great deal" or "good amount" of blame are as follows:

* 80 percent said banks and other financial institutions

* 80 percent said large business corporations

* 72 percent said consumers

* 70 percent said the Bush administration

* 26 percent said the Obama administration

Continue reading »

When guys like Bill O'Reilly -- guys with massive public megaphones -- unleash their venom on groups they hate (particularly liberal groups) they always want you to forget that they're in fact talking about mostly ordinary people who are every bit the "real American" Bill O'Reilly pretends to be.

So when O'Reilly let loose on the SEIU the other day -- calling them a "radical left" outfit bent on conspiring with George Soros to destroy capitalism -- he wasn't just attacking some big faceless union, he was describing its 12 million members that way too.

Today, some of those members released a video urging Bill O'Reilly to come spend a day in their shoes, and he might gain an appreciation for what it is the union actually does for them.

Not that O'Reilly would ever deign to respond. When you're a big giant "battleship," no one notices when you're chickens--t.

DOWNLOAD (433)

PLAY (341)

RNC chairman Michael Steele, being obsequious before La Rush Petit, Glenn Beck, on his Fox show yesterday, let slip an inadvertent truth about Republicans in general:

Beck: Michael, ah, you know, the Democrats should not be pushing for the Fairness Doctrine, because quite honestly, um, I think, at least my radio audience is more pissed at you guys than they are the Democrats. We expect socialism from some of the Democrats, we don't expect it from you. And if I may be so bold to speak for a lot of people here, I can tell you how I feel, and I think a lot of people feel this way.

We actually believed in something in 2000. We believed in something in 2004. It's not really easy to be, you know, the pariah in your office, to be the hatemonger racist that wants to steal, you know, starve everybody's children and just hates anybody who is different. We actually took a lot of crap for a long time, and then you guys betrayed us. Why we would we even think twice of pulling a lever again? Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice -- oh my God!

Steele: No, Glenn, look, I'm not going to soft-pedal this with you, I'm not going to try to blow smoke either. The reality of it is you are absolutely right. You have absolutely no reason -- none -- to trust our word or our actions at this point.

So yeah, it's going to be an uphill climb.

I don't think admitting that they've proven themselves utterly untrustworthy is going to convince anyone that now they are. Especially when they're making the confession to nutcases who think they weren't rigidly ideological enough.