Sunday, April 26, 2009


Step back from this:

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized Friday for a department assessment that suggested returning combat veterans could be recruited by right-wing extremist groups.
I read it this way:
(Blameless) Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized Friday for a department assessment that suggested (the undeniable fact that) returning combat veterans could be recruited by right-wing extremist groups.
When our discourse is debased by the political requirement to pretend that true facts are false - even to mollycoddle an otherwise deserving group - it's difficult to have the sort of honest, no-bullshit discussion that is required for good government.

It's political correctness run amok.


Anonymous said...

Ms. Napolitano should resign. She generates at least 1 gaffe/week and doesn't have the gray matter for her position. She should (insert your cliche here) and leave.

Anonymous said...

What's the big deal? As a military wife whose husband deployed to Iraq on 3 tours in the past 3 years, I'd have to say that Ms. Napolitano is incorrect. To me, it seems that most Iraq War veterans are more likely to be recruited by left-wing extremists. From observing his friends and the families affected, I'd have to say that the more times they are deployed, the more bitter about the war they become, and in turn look to support the left and those who are against the war. They are tired of going back.

lovable liberal said...

The anti-war position is held by mainstream Democrats, not by left-wing extremists, of whom there are very, very few who resort to violence.

In any case, the facts that led to this report came out of the Pentagon. Janet Napolitano is not making them up.

We Democrats would love to have you and your husband. America has asked way more than we should have of our all-volunteer military.

globeisatrocious said...

How is a hypothetical based on no data a fact? Get new reading glasses.

lovable liberal said...

No data? Try this FBI report from 2008.

You really are impenetrable to reality.

But thanks for the tip on reading glasses. You obviously speak from experience.

Silence DoGood said...

This is just like W.Bush raising the Homeland security alert level before important votes or actions in Congress. It was clearly manipulative but it came form an official agency of the government so it must be true right?

WRONG. I didn't believe it when Bush did it and I don't believe it when Obama does it through the FBI this time around.

In fact, go back a few years when Reagan was Governor of Calif. - he used the FBI to "report" on left wing folks he didn't like - was the FBI full of facts then?

"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The FBI (news - web sites), working covertly with the CIA (news - web sites) and then-Gov. Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), spent years unlawfully trying to quash the voices and careers of students and faculty deemed subversive at the University of California, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. "

Question Authority!

lovable liberal said...

SDG, look again at the date on the FBI report. It could hardly have been manipulated by a Democratic administration.

Question authority all you like, but that's a bumper sticker. We have already seen right-wing violence, and we will again. To avert our eyes to avoid hurting the feelings of the military? That's failing to question authority.

Your stock in trade is "they all do it." But, at worst, Democrats do it at much lower scale and frequency. To reach the firm conclusion that the release of this report was a manipulation on a par with repeated "coincidences" of threat rating increases means only that you started with the conclusion, and here's one data point that might confirm it - but only if correlated with many more data points. What was the vital vote that it could have manipulated anyway?

You are a liberal in the same way that Silence Do-Good was a middle-aged woman.

Silence DoGood said...

LL - Thanks for your permission to Question Authority. I was not stopped by Bush's terrorist fear mongering and I will not be stopped by Obama's fright-wing demons. (yes, I know there are terrorists and right wing nut jobs)

Thanks also for the compliment on SDG true identity. Being compared to BF is an honor I do not deserve, but will take what I can get!

He is sort of an independent thinking role model of mine.

I will not insult you back, even though this seems like a fun technique you use.

If everyone thought for themselves instead of just rehashing the latest media feed or FBI report, we would have something different from the RNC - DNC Status Quo.

Bonus exercise for a true liberal like you: Name a big policy position of Obama's that you find absolutely wrong and completely disagree with.

lovable liberal said...

Easy: Non-prosecution of torture.

Here's another: Advocacy in court for the Bushist state secrets privilege.

I'm not fond of the management of the bank bail-outs. If you read here, you'll find I've said often that temporary socialism is the way to manage recovery of the financial system. Hey, we bought it; we should own it. Socializing the profits is not only practical, it's just.

I also think there are too many tax cuts in the stimulus that don't stimulate. But I guess that's not "absolute" disagreement.

Not to worry, you insult me all the time. It's that weird passive-aggressive thing you do that makes me think you're not as questioning as you make out to be. Instead, you buy into dozens of false equivalences.

By the way, I didn't compare you to Franklin. You did. I just recognized your handle.

One other fact to note: Your response was entirely rhetorical and did not address even one of my points.

Question would-be authority!