How to Fight ISIS

Via Juanita Jean:

Deport the Real Threat

Digby:

And once again, this is completely irrational. We have had a small handful of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 which were perpetrated by alienated losers looking for a reason to shoot up or blow up a bunch of people --- something that happens almost every day in this country. The idea that this particular problem in America has anything in particular to do with Muslim extremism and therefore requires that we ban Muslims from entering our precious country is daft. If it's safety we're looking for we'd be better off deporting angry white guys with gun collections.

Not the President's Job to Keep Me Safe

Maybe Americans don't understand the role of civilian control of the military because it's been so fucking long since we were invaded.

Because the limeys burning the White House in 1813 is the closest we've come to an actual existential threat, and even that fell far short of threatening us even seriously, much less to the point of erasing our existence.

Although we came a hell of a lot closer to elimination as a nation 150 years ago, when the only threat was from the idiot and criminal slaveholders* of the south whom we should have slapped the fuck down decades before.

In fact, that's the real existential threat we're facing today. Not from "outsiders," but from the vipers we've nourished at our breast since abandoning Reconstruction: the descendants of Traitors in Defense of Tyranny and their camp followers and apologists.  They're the ones perpetrating more than one mass shooting in this country Every. Single. Fucking. Day.

They're the ones whose fear-mongering and slander of muslims are giving aid and comfort to those syphilitic desert punks raping and beheading because they don't have a real military.

They're the ones who don't understand that presidents lead the country; mommies keep you safe.

Charlie Pierce on the repug "debate":

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That title is rarely—more like never—heard today. It is just "commander in chief," or even "commander in chief of the United States." This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken "for the duration." But those impositions are removed when normal life returns. But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and "the duration" has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever—more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

—Garry Wills, 2007.

I needed to put that on the record because its basic truth was completely lost in a dark land of fear and amid the waving poison ferns in Wolf Blitzer's amygdala.

First of all, none of these people will be my commander in chief. None of these people will have the job of keeping me "safe." The first priority of a president is not keeping the country safe. The first priority of a president—indeed, the only priority of a president—is to preserve, protect and defend not me, but the Constitution of the United States. So sitting there, listening to a bunch of people who never served a day in combat talk about how they're going to turn the Middle East into obsidian glass and how they will keep me safe, it was hard not to fall off my chair. Frankly, I wouldn't hire any of these people to watch my car in a valet parking lot, let alone lead the country into what they never miss a chance to call, "the Third World War." Chris Christie? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio?

 *Yes, including my ancestors.

The Face of Terrorism

Not to mention Scott Rudolph, Eric Rudolph and the other anti-abortion terrorists. And don't forget the uber-terrorist himself, Timothy McVeigh.

"The Work of Amateurs"

Amateurs who killed as many as they did only because being in the Land of the Gun gave them easy access to major weapons,.

Digby:

But ask yourself an important question: if this was a sophisticated plot, years in the making, does targeting a Christmas party full of county bureaucrats in San Bernardino really make a lot of sense? If this "sleeper" had been trained and groomed for this job, you'd think she would have come up with something with a little bit more political impact.

No, this is probably exactly what Engle says, an amateur pair of Lone Wolf killers in a land where they can easily get their hands on as much firepower as they want who carried out their own little jihad. It's no less devastating to the victims of their insanity, of course. But everyone needs to take a breath and recognize that this is likely no different than all the other mass shootings we've had this year.

And that is bad enough.

Oh, and by the way, the Republicans in congress once again voted down any restrictions on gun rights for suspected terrorists. Yesterday.

Yes, terrorism, albeit amateur.  But so are all the shooting attacks that happen in this country literally every single day.

Like Colorado Springs.

Repug Pants-Wetters Determined to Create Radical Muslims in America

Their hysteria over muslinterrists under the bed is pure projection: America's real domestic terrorists are the very right-wing, freakazoid gun nuts repugs have been growing and cherishing for 60 years.

And now their screaming hate-mongering is going to create in reality the myth they lie about.

 

Digby:

Michael Cohen makes a good point in this column about the various myths surrounding the Paris attacks and US policy toward ISIS:

Myth No. 1: America Is Next

From the pages of Politico to the CBS news program “60 Minutes,” this argument has been made repeatedly since Friday night, and it demonstrates a glaring ignorance about the differences between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to vulnerability to terrorism.

The biggest difference is that the United States simply doesn’t have a radicalized Muslim population, as is the case in France and elsewhere in Europe. That matters a lot because foreign terrorists operating in the United States, especially in a post-9/11 environment, would need local assistance, safe houses, access to weapons and explosives, logistical support and more. In short, they would need Americans, or people who know American culture and who can operate in the country freely. Yet, in the 14 years since 9/11, there’s been no serious emergence of radicalization among American Muslims. The Fort Hood shooter and the Boston Marathon bombers are obvious exceptions, but exceptions nonetheless.

Europe is a very different kettle of fish than the US. They have large Muslim populations with long-standing social unrest and cultural alienation. It's quite possible that the radicalization, at least among some of them, has as much to do with their own issues as Europeans as it has with their religion or solidarity with the aims of ISIS.

We have not had this in the US. But from the way the Republicans are acting, it appears we're jealous and would like to get some. At the very least they seem petulant that we aren't in the center of the  fight. Treating Muslims like aliens and talking about closing mosques and rounding up and interning or deporting them is one way to get there.

Keep it up boys. This demagoguery may very well keep out Syrian refugees but if you want to create some American homegrown Islamic radicals you're doing a heckuva job.

Why Doesn't AynRandy Demand Saudi Arabia Fight Its Own Fucking Wars?

If the Tribble-Toupeed One is really the libertarian small-government champion he wants everyone to think he is, why is he so gung-ho for American soldiers to fight and die in the desert to save Saudi Arabia from the Islamic State the Saudis themselves created?

C'mon, Randy: you don't give a shit about how the Saudis treat the sub-humans sometimes known as "women." Your Dominionist buddies would do worse if they thought they could get away with it.

A boycott?  Of what?  The only economic connections the Saudis have with the U.S. are the oil they sell to us and the military hardware they buy.

Military hardware that sits in the desert and disintegrates from non-use because the Saudis don't fight their own wars; they get us to fight and die for them.

Boycotts won't change the Saudis; only being forced to fight their own fucking wars will do that.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia on Saturday, saying Americans should shun the kingdom as it did the apartheid regime in South Africa.

"Remember when South Africa was misbehaving? We organized a boycott of South Africa. We should be boycotting Saudi Arabia and not taking money from Saudi Arabia's government," Paul said.

At that time international sanctions were levied against the nation, along with a divestment campaign.

While the senator in his statements did not differentiate a government boycott from one by individuals, a spokesperson later said in a statement that Paul was "not calling for a governmental boycott, but rather options for private citizens and investors."

All the Repugs Have Is Fear. Unfortunately, It Works

karoli at Crooks and Liars:

Whether it's Ebola, the IRS, ISIS, Benghazi! or the recent Secret Service scandal, Republicans are dedicated to convincing voters they live in a dark, horrible world. Be afraid, little people, be afraid.

The corollary to that is, of course, that the good soldier Republicans will save you if you'll only vote for them so they can roll back time to some time in history (God knows when!) when everything was wonderful.

It's a tactic. Fear as motivation to reject progress is time-honored and Republicans have turned it into a sort of art form -- dark arts, that is. After all, one of the reasons we live in a somewhat scary world is because of what Republicans did; specifically, Republicans George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

SNIP

Fear and anger. Fear and bigotry. Fear and selfishness. Classic conservative tactics and monsters of conservative invention for the purely cynical purpose of gaining and consolidating power.

For example, the Ebola virus. President Obama has wisely decided that deploying our military expertise to build medical facilities and help put some infrastructure in Africa to combat the disease is a good thing. But David Vitter objects, claiming it focuses too much on Africa. No funding for efforts to contain the virus and save lives in Africa, Vitter whines, while clutching his pearls and crying about "illegals" crossing the southern border with unnamed but intentional linkage to the Ebola virus. Be afraid!

Fear, baby. It sells. Give them some fear, forget that you refuse to deal with the situation causing the fear.

Permanent War Is Permanent: Who Wants to DIe for Syria?

Or rather, as Bob Dreyfus points out at The Nation, who wants to die for Al Qaeda in Syria?

With the apparent decision to arm the Syrian rebels, President Obama looks like he’s going to go kersplat! onto his face and land smack dab in the Syrian quagmire.

SNIP

In fact, it may be too late for the United States to alter the course of the war. The commander of the Syrian Military Council himself has flatly turned down Secretary of State John Kerry’s invitation to attend a peace conference, insisting instead that the rebels get advanced, high-tech weapons. In recent weeks the Syrian government has made important battlefield advances, and by all accounts the tide of war has turned sharply against the Saudi Arabia– and Qatar-backed fighters, the Al Qaeda forces and others.

As in Vietnam, when the United States persisted in that hopeless war in part because it felt like to withdraw would damage American credibility, in Syria there is a real chance the President Obama will slide all the way down the slope to full-scale war simply because he won’t want to tolerate an Assad victory.

BooMan

If this seems prudent or sane to you, you are probably crazy. We all know better than to trust government estimates of the cost of military intervention, but let's go with the $50 million/day to create a limited no-fly zone in southern Syria. How many days are we willing to pay that $50 million? Five hundred days? A thousand days? What was it in Iraq? Over three thousand days? Followed by trillions of dollars more for a full-on invasion and decade-long occupation?

Once we put our skin in the game and start incurring costs, there is no end game but victory, and there can be no victory without escalation. We will own an irreparably broken country. Again.

And the American people are not going to stand for it.

Yes, we are. Just like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Iraq, just like we're still doing in Afghanistan.

Trust has been broken. This is a terrible idea.

SNIP

Nonetheless, we should expect our foreign relations with Russia and Iraq to immediately go into the toilet and stay there. We should expect to become the target of Iranian/Hizbollah/Shiite-inspired terrorism attacks. We should even expect some Sunnis to attack us just for being in Jordan.

SNIP

The small-scale use of sarin would be an insufficient reason for our country to assume this degree of risk and cost. And literally no one will thank us for our efforts.

Intervening in Syria gains us nothing but death, bankruptcy and even more implacable enemies.

Oh, and permanent political victory for repugs who get to condemn Democrats for both cowardice (not nuking Syria and Iran) and financially ruining the nation.

If the NDAA Is So Essential, Then Use It Right

Barack Obama is the most grown-up president we've had since Eisenhower. Yet even he cannot turn down unconstitutional power handed to him on a platter.

Adam Serwer at Mother Jones:

... there's a bipartisan group of Senators who want to protect the president's authority to imprison American citizens without proving they're guilty of anything at all. Barack Obama, for his part, hasn't weighed in on either side—but given that the president has promised never to attempt to use this power, it's a mystery why he wouldn't vocally oppose it. If Obama and his advisers believe this kind of indefinite detention is an anathema to due process, why not support a bipartisan effort to ensure that Americans' constitutional rights aren't dependent on the whim of whichever president is in office?

At least the battle lines here are clearly drawn in a way they weren't over last year's defense bill. One group of legislators thinks Americans can be deprived of their liberty in their own home country without a trial. The other thinks the government has to actually prove you're guilty of something first.

Or as Wonkette commenter Wile E. Quixote put it:

It's too bad that President Obama doesn't have my finely developed sense of irony. If Wile E. Quixote were in the Oval Office and was handed an Enabling Act like the NDAA by a bunch of teabaggers and craven Democratic dipshits like Carl Levin the first thing that President Quixote would do with his shiny new NDAA powers would be to declare everyone who voted for the NDAA a terrorist and have them sent to Gitmo. Just to be sure he'd also find all of the people who contirbuted to their campaigns, and everyone at Fox News, and send them there as well. Think of how much fun that would be.

Terrorist on Trial in New York City; Sky Doesn't Fall

Somebody needs to ask Mitt Romney - and every repug candidate out there - why he has so little faith in the U.S. Justice System to handle Guantanamo's pathetic losers.

Ben Armbruster at Think Progress:

In 2009, the Obama administration announced that it would try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) and 4 other co-conspirators in civilian courts in New York City, but the right wing and obstructionists in Congress launched a fearmongering campaign to prevent this from happening. “There is not going to be a trial in New York, I guarantee it,” then House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said at the time. “There is no appetite for the trials in Congress.” Attorney General Eric Holder eventually acquiesced to the pressure and sent the case back to the Pentagon. A military commission trial is set for Guantanamo Bay next month.

But a high-profile terrorism trial is currently taking place in Brooklyn without much fanfare. Authorities arrested three men in 2009 and 2010 accused of plotting to blow up targets on the New York City subway system. While two of the suspects have already pleaded guilty, the trial of the third, Adis Medunjanin, who was arrested in January 2010, began last week. This time though, the right-wing isn’t saying much, NPR reports:

“It’s rather ironic that this case has attracted so little attention,” says Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University who used to work on detainee affairs for the Bush administration. “This trial has been an occasion for a convention of terrorism suspects.” [...]

What makes the Brooklyn trial of Medunjanin particularly unusual, Waxman of Columbia University says, is the sheer number of convicted terrorists who have shown up in court. He says the testimony, and the way the trial is unfolding, is proof that the criminal justice system can handle terrorism cases — and tough cases with classified material don’t need to be sent to military commissions at Guantanamo.

“In the past, the idea of prosecuting terrorists here in New York has generated huge outcry,” he says. “But this high-profile trial is going on right here.”

Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that federal officials said the plot was “one of the most serious threats to the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks.”

The Terrorists We're Not Fighting

I rarely say "I wish I had written this." But I wish I had written this:

The Rude Pundit:

This burnt-out part of a building used to be the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Because abortions were performed there, it had been the flashpoint for anti-choice nutzoids for decades, including bombings in 1984 and other violence. Pensacola is also where two doctors who performed abortions were gunned down in the 1990s. In the early hours of 2012, a redneck, criminal homeless puke who should have met the L.A. serial killer tossed a Molotov cocktail at the place and burned it down because he didn't like abortions being done safely.

According to an affidavit in the arrest of Bobby Joe Rogers, the cracker arsonist had been spending time with anti-choice protesters who were regularly chanting, singing, holding signs, and occasionally blocking the way outside the clinic. The actual violence had died down since the shootings. Rogers was influenced by them. By groups devoted to ending a Supreme Court-approved liberty, as allowed by the founding document of our nation. Indeed, one could say of these groups, with little argument, that they hate us for our freedom and wish to impose a radical religious doctrine on the nation.

In other words, Bobby Joe Rogers is as much a terrorist as any mythical al-Qaeda sleeper agent. But because he was deluded by radical Christianity instead of radical Islam, he probably won't be treated as such. The groups that cheer on Rogers won't be investigated. Their assets won't be seized. Their members won't be demonized for the things they wrote and spoke that led directly to violence. They will be treated as anomalies, not the mainstream of a virulent, anti-American ideology. We will be told by anti-choice politicians that they don't advocate violence and that we shouldn't think that all anti-choice protesters are like Rogers. We will be expected to believe them.

There is a war, yes, in this country that has nothing to do with the utterly minor threat of Islamic terrorism occurring here. It is a war on women that is waged by state legislatures, with more restrictions on abortion access passed than ever, and it is a war waged by the very random, violent psychopaths that the government is supposed to have been granted wide power to protect us from.

Now, we can argue about whether or not the government should have those powers. But, surely, more women (and men) in this nation have been intimidated by Christian fundamentalists than have ever even thought they were threatened by Muslims. Imagine if it had been a Muslim man who tossed a bottle bomb at, say, an army recruiting office in a strip mall because he opposes American foreign policy. Imagine the wrath that would have been brought down on him.

How is Rogers any different? Oh, that's right. We're supposed to be furious about the larger implications of fantasy Muslims and we're supposed to ignore the very real implications of the very real Christian terrorists.

If you're not reading The Rude Pundit every day, you're missing the best - no joke, no exaggeration - the absolute best writing on the Internet - or off it.

The Cowardice is Contagious

Oh for pity's fucking sake. Bad enough that every Grand Old Poopyhead in the Commonwealth is shitting his britches at the thought of exercising a little criminal justice, but it's spreading to fraidy-cat dems.

From the Herald:

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell heads to Bowling Green Friday to gather support to move two terrorism suspects out of the country, more Kentucky politicians are joining McConnell to ask that the two Iraqi nationals be tried somewhere else.

Todd P’Pool, a Republican running against Democrat Attorney General Jack Conway in the November general election, called for the terrorists to be moved to Guantanamo Bay, arguing that it was dangerous to hold a civilian federal trial on Kentucky soil.

“Terrorists should be tried as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, not here in Kentucky,” P’Pool said in a written release.

P’Pool campaign also called on Conway on Friday to clarify his position on where the two Iraqi-born residents arrested last month in Bowling Green on terrorism-related charges should be tried.

Conway’s camp said that the issue was a federal one, but Conway supports trying terrorism suspects in military courts. “This matter is being handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, not the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office,” said Melissa Wideman, of Conway’s campaign. “And for the record, Jack Conway believes terrorists should be tried in military tribunals, not civilian courts.”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has argued that the two men should be tried in federal civilian court, which has worked well in hundreds of other terrorism-related trials since Sept. 11.

Holder said there is no more powerful tool than the civilian court system in disrupting potential attacks and effectively interrogating, prosecuting and incarcerating terrorists.

“Despite this reality, we continue to see overheated rhetoric that is detached from history — and from the facts,” Holder said on Thursday. “We see crucial national security tools, once again, being put at risk by those who disparage the American criminal justice system, and misguidedly claim that terror suspects cannot be tried safely in our civilian courts.”

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear, Senate President David Williams, Beshear’s Republican opponent in the November general election, and House Speaker Greg Stumbo have all said that they support moving the suspects to Guantanamo Bay. Beshear said that it was up to the federal government to make that decision.

No surprise - Beshear's running to David Williams' right on everything.

Once upon a time, Democratic politicians in Kentucky understood that winning elections requires disagreeing with your opponents, not bleating "me, too!" around the thumb in your mouth.

Mitch McConnell: Save Me From the Scary Muslin Men!

I mean seriously - Bowling Green? Population 56,598? University town in the heart of Red Kentucky? Any terrists in that town wouldn't make it past the rifle-bristling pickups at the Food Mart.

But Mitch McConnell is pissing his pants in fear about putting these pathetic bumblers on trial in a state where looking cross-eyed at the local sheriff can get you hard time.

How dare he imply that Kentucky jurors are as cowardly as he is - too afraid to stand up to two Iraqi refugees who couldn't put together a simple plan without tripping the feds?

From the Herald:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called on the Obama administration Tuesday to send two Iraqi nationals arrested recently in Bowling Green to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The two were charged with helping to plot attacks on U.S. troops.

"Sending them to Gitmo is the only way we can be certain there won't be retaliatory attacks in Kentucky," McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

"Sending them to Gitmo is the only way we can prevent Kentuckians from having to cover the cost and having to deal with the disturbances and disruptions that would come with a civilian trial. And sending them to Gitmo is the best way to ensure that they get what they deserve. So today I'm calling on the administration to change course — and get these men out of Kentucky."

Waad Ramadan Alwan, 30, and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 23, two Iraqi refugees living in Bowling Green, were indicted recently for plotting to send sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, explosives and money back to their home country to be used in attacks on U.S. troops. The men pleaded not guilty.

McConnell has been a strident and vocal critic of the administration's efforts, though stymied, to close the Guantánamo Bay prison.

"I can say with certainty that Kentuckians don't want foreign fighters who've bragged about killing and maiming U.S. soldiers in a combat theater treated like common criminals in their own back yards," McConnell said.

The Department of Justice countered Tuesday that prosecuting the two men in federal court is the most proven method for keeping the country safe.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, hundreds of defendants have been convicted in the federal court system of terrorism or terrorism-related violations, said Dean Boyd, a U.S. Justice Department spokesman.

In none of these cases has a judicial district suffered retaliatory attacks, Boyd said. There also has never been a military-commission prosecution of a terror suspect arrested on American soil, he said.

"As the senator acknowledged, everyone involved in this investigation clearly did their jobs and did them well. The successful investigation, arrests, and interrogation in this case show the effectiveness of our intelligence and law enforcement authorities in bringing terrorists to justice and preventing them from harming the American people," Boyd said. "Abandoning those proven methods would do nothing but risk the safety of the American people."

Mitch McConnell is an anti-American, anti-Kentuckian coward who doesn't trust the U.S. Criminal Justice System, doesn't trust the U.S. Constitution, and doesn't trust his fellow Kentuckians to do the right thing and protect their own homes and families.

Or maybe he just doesn't want Kentuckians reminded that the country we spent trillions to invade and occupy with McConnell's bloodthirsty - or oilthirsty - support is a far bigger terrorist threat to U.S. troops now than it was before Mitchie-poo's Excellent Iraqi Adventure.

Unconditional Surrender

Are. You. Fucking. Kidding. Me.

Let's just swear in President Bachmann right now.

Right after we wave bye-bye to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care for anyone not a millionaire, public schools, minimum wage, clean water, safe food, police and fire protection .... and any last semblance of civilization here in New Gilead.

Genuflect to our new corporate overlords. Their minions, the republicans, have won.

No, I'm not exaggerating. Even never-say-die Obama apologist Steve Benen calls him a coward:

Holder told reporters this afternoon that his original decision was still the right one, but blamed Congress for "tying our hands."

He happens to be right. Even today, Holder wants to do the right thing, and so does President Obama. And yet, Gitmo is open today, and KSM will be subjected to a military commission in the near future, not because of an administration that backed down in the face of far-right whining, but because congressional Republicans orchestrated a massive, choreographed freak-out, and scared the bejesus out of congressional Democrats. Together, they limited the White House's options to, in effect, not having any choice at all.

There's plenty of room for criticism of the administration, but those slamming Obama for "breaking his word" on this are blaming the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

No, I'm not blaming him for breaking his word. I'm blaming him for being a coward - for letting the most pathetic bunch of retarded, narcissistic bullies in the history of the world push him around.

Steve M. says they're worse than cowards:

Not cowardice exactly -- more like false bravado. A big percentage of the country wants to flatter itself by imagining that these guys have superpowers, and the military or the Bush administration or Cheeto-chomping right-wing bloggers are somehow holding these supervillains at bay using superhuman powers of their own. These folks aren't pants-wetters, they're worse: they're people who want to persuade you they're tough by exaggerating the risks they, and they alone, are fending off. (They certainly give no credit to the actual current commander in chief, or anyone in his administration.)

****

And I'd just like to remind you of what Peggy Noonan wrote less than a month ago:

If you asked most Americans why we went into Afghanistan in the weeks after 9/11, they would answer, with perfect common sense, that it was to get the bad guys—to find or kill Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda followers, to topple the Taliban government that had given them aid and support, to destroy terrorist networks and operations....

America wanted -- needed -- to see U.S. troops pull Osama out of his cave by his beard and drag him in his urine-soaked robes into an American courtroom.

Noonan's a right-wing apparatchik, but she's old-school, so she doesn't always remember what ideas have been disappeared by the right's culture commissars. She still thinks it's the early Bush era, when it was unthinkable that we wouldn't force bin Laden to do a perp walk into a courtroom in Manhattan, assuming we caught him alive. And, as Noonan's slip-up reminds us, that would have been perfectly fine.

Yes, these are the shitting-themselves morons to whom Barack Obama has unconditionally surrendered.

Quote of the Day

From emptywheel at Firedoglake:

Because nothing says “laying the foundation” of a Presidential campaign and “inspiring new” supporters like caving to fearmongering.

Guns for Terrorists

Here's a question to ask your local repug candidate for Congress:

Should people on the terrorist no-fly list be allowed to buy guns in this country?

Because the repugs sitting in Congress now are answering that question Yes.

Steve Benen explains:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has been pushing a bill that seems pretty reasonable -- if you're on the FBI terror watch list, you should be ineligible to buy weapons in the U.S. Law enforcement has long supported the proposal, but Congress keeps rejecting it.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the subject yesterday, and as Gail Collins noted, it didn't go well.

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, "when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn't consider flying."

The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said, "Let me emphasize that none of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun." She then proceeded to explain her opposition to a bill that would prevent those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

The NYT's Gail Collins added, "There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms."

That's a good line, but it's also an important point. Conservative Republicans have spent the week reminding us of their firm belief that terrorist suspects should be afforded no rights at all. Miranda? Don't bother. Citizenship? Probably not. Due process? That's pre-9/11 thinking.

But if you're on the terrorist watch list and want to stock up on automatic rifles, conservative Republicans will do whatever it takes to make sure you can do just that.

This is nothing new. Almost nine years ago, terrorist-loving conservative republicans in Congress stripped the Patriot Act of a provision tracking gun purchases.

Protecting the NRA, crippling the FBI, abandoning the troops in Afghanistan to attack Iraq, attacking Iraq, opposing the Department of Homeland Security, imprisoning hundreds of non-terrorists, losing valuable intelligence through torture ... time after time after time after time repugs have chosen the path that made American less safe, less secure, less fiscally sound, less accountable to the rule of law, less civilized, less constitutionally potent, less strong.

If repugs think selling guns to terrorists is such a great idea, let's toss them out of office so they can open up gun shops.