Islamic Extremist Use Trump as Recruiting Tool

Many have accused Donald Trump of aiding the enemy - i.e, ISIS and other extremist groups - through his vitriolic denunciations of Muslims and advocacy for barring Muslims from America.  Trump's demagoguery plays well with the racist, knuckle draggers of the GOP base, but plays right into ISIS and other groups' desire to depict America and the West at war against Islam and by extension, all Muslims. Not that Trump, the carnival barker playing to America's own extremists seems to give a damn.  A piece in the New York Times looks at how Trump's rhetoric is being used against America.  Here are highlights:

Al Qaeda’s branch in Somalia released a recruitment video on Friday that criticized racism and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States and contained footage of the Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump announcing his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country.

The video, released by the militant group Shabab, appeared to be the first time that Mr. Trump was featured in jihadist recruitment material. During a Democratic presidential debate last month, Hillary Clinton said that Mr. Trump had been used in a recruitment video for the Islamic State, a claim that was later debunked.

Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are rival jihadist groups that compete for recruits and money among radicalized Muslims.  Representatives for the Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

The video was authenticated by the SITE Intelligence Group, which studies jihadist propaganda, and it appeared to be aimed at the African-American community.

In addition to footage of Mr. Trump, the video, which is 51 minutes long, included excerpts from speeches by Malcolm X and unnamed white supremacists, as well as footage of white police officers, African-Americans protesting police brutality and African-American men in prison. Some appeared to be performing Islamic prayers.

Using footage of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American member of a Qaeda affiliate who was killed in an American drone attack in 2011, the video also said the United States was gripped by a “malignant hatred” of Islam. It warned American Muslims that “there are ominous clouds gathering in your horizon.”

“The West will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens,” he said, jabbing his finger toward the camera. Only two choices remained for Muslims in the United States, he said.

“You either leave or you fight,” he said. “You leave and live among Muslims, or you stay behind and follow the example of Nidal Hasan and others who fulfilled their duty of fighting for Allah’s cause.”

What is frightening is that far too many Americans seem only too happy to play right into ISIS's hands, especially GOP presidential candidates who are only too eager to prostitute themselves to the ugliest elements of the GOP base.

Donald Trump Hands a Victory to ISIS

There is probably nothing that ISIS wants more than to be able to depict its actions as defending Islam (certainly its virulent version of Islam) against a war brought by the United States and other "Christian" nations.  Even Republicans - such as even the usually cretinous George W. Bush - have taken pains to separate Al Qaeda and now, ISIS from all of Islam.  Yet today, Donald Trump more or less declared war n all Muslims and  called for the "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."  Not surprisingly, Trump cited "research" from a certified hate group as backing his statements. Trump's declaration no doubt is playing well with the ugliest, knuckle dragging elements of the GOP base.  But it is probably being welcomed with even more excitement in ISIS leadership circles.  The question now becomes whether or not the mainline GOP (to the extent it still exists) will at last grow the spine to loudly and repeatedly condemn Trump and his followers.  A piece in Politico looks at Trump's poorly thought through declaration.  Here are highlights:

Donald Trump on Monday said there should be a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," a surprising escalation of rhetoric—even for him.

The brash GOP front-runner, increasingly desperate to hold on to his position atop the field, emailed out the statement just hours after a new poll showed Ted Cruz overtaking him for the first time in Iowa, where the first-in-the-nation caucuses are less than two months away (a second poll of likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers released Monday afternoon showed Trump maintaining his lead in Iowa).

Doubling down on the signature demagoguery that has enraged liberals and many moderate Republicans but endeared him to the conservative base, Trump said that the U.S. should stop all Muslims from entering the country in response to the ISIL-coordinated attacks in Paris and last week’s ISIL-inspired shooting in San Bernardino carried out by a Muslim husband and wife who became radicalized.

Trump’s statement, without citing a study, said that Pew Research had found that “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.” Trump’s aides promoted the statement on Twitter. 

Even though Trump aide Daniel Scavino had tweeted the statement, Trump’s campaign fielded a number of calls from reporters wanting to confirm that the statement was real—a sign of the outlandish nature of this latest proposal, even from a candidate who has been uniquely audacious in stretching the boundaries of political decorum and the standard Republican orthodoxies on policy.

But the statement, Trump’s campaign confirmed, was true. A spokeswoman, when asked what inspired the comments, said Trump commented, “death.”

To clear up any doubts, Trump himself tweeted moments later: “Just put out a very important policy statement regarding the influx of hatred and danger coming into out country. We must be vigilant.”

Once again, Trump’s extreme positioning on an issue forced his GOP rivals to weigh in, further fanning attention Trump’s way.

Jeb Bush quickly spoke out on Twitter, saying, “Donald Trump is unhinged. His ‘policy’ proposals are not serious.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Trump’s statement “a ridiculous view” and chalked it up to his lack of political experience.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who unlike Cruz and Rubio isn’t making a serious play for Trump voters, slammed the rhetoric as “just more of the outrageous divisiveness that characterizes his every breath and another reason why he is entirely unsuited to lead the United States.”

The statement also drew fire from South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who tweeted, “@realDonaldTrump has gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric.”

Trump's proposal, which would seemingly violate the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, also comes on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, an attack that ultimately led to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two.

Incredulous as so many were upon hearing Trump's proposal, a longtime political operative who knows Trump well saw a cunning political ploy aimed at solidifying the billionaire's standing with the GOP base.

"He knows that by driving a wedge like this, he'll win the Republican primary," the operative said. "This is a base that is almost completely opposed to resettling any Syrian refugees in the U.S. He's locking down that real estate, forcing his rivals to scramble to figure out their own positioning and he's setting the agenda once again.  "He knows the xenophobia thing works with the Republican base. It just does."

Trump’s statement also quoted a study by the Center for Security Policy that claimed, "'25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as part of the global Jihad.'" The CSP is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Don't Criticize France When Bush and Cheney Ignored 9-11 Warnings

The death toll in Paris is not even final, yet many on the far right in America's chattering class and GOP politicians are already insanely laying blame on Barack Obama, french gun control laws, and any number of irrelevant things - liberals, college students, the list is nothing short of crazy.   Yet through all of this is a total failure to admit that the more serious failure to stop Islamic terrorism occurred on the watch of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who remain darlings of the far right.  Making all of this far worse is new information that makes it painfully clear that Bush and Cheney were warned and did nothing. A piece in Salon looks at the shocking failure of Bush/Cheney and they failure to hold them accountable (and let's not forget the war crimes they committed).  Here are column highlights:

Documentarian Chris Whipple has some new bombshell revelations about how the Bush administration ignored the advance warnings of 9/11 in story for Politico, “‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular,’” a spin-off of his documentary, “The Spymasters,” set to air this month on Showtime, in which he interviews all 12 living former CIA directors.

Whipple’s most stunning revelations revolve around a July 10 meeting that’s been mentioned by others in books before—Bob Woodward, George Tenet, Condi Rice—but always in a manner that drastically underplays the urgency of CIA’s warnings, and how much they had to go on, according to Whipple’s new information:

By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, “it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.” “There were real plots being manifested,” Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. “The world felt like it was on the edge of eruption. In this time period of June and July, the threat continues to rise. Terrorists were disappearing [as if in hiding, in preparation for an attack]. Camps were closing. Threat reportings on the rise.”

Finally, things boiled over:

That morning of July 10, the head of the agency’s Al Qaeda unit, Richard Blee, burst into Black’s office. “And he says, ‘Chief, this is it. Roof’s fallen in,’” recounts Black. “The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw.”

Tenet called Rice for an immediate meeting with her and her team—Bush was out of town:

“Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda’s intention is the destruction of the United States.’” [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

But nothing happened. “To me it remains incomprehensible still,” Black told Whipple. “I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone.”

It was not just a failure to respond to warnings, however. There was a broader refusal to even consider thinking proactively. Along these lines, Whipple writes more broadly about Tenet and Black’s plan to “end the al Qaeda threat” with a combined military/CIA campaign “getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.” They pitched the plan in spring of 2001, according to Whipple, “‘And the word back,’ says Tenet, ‘was “we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.”’ (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)”

Black chalks this up to the Bush team being stuck in the past, thinking of terrorists as “Euro-lefties,” but there was a deeper story, with more to the state of denial than Whipple discusses, since the Bush team was also actively fending off dealing with the recommendations of bipartisan Hart-Rudman Commission (officially the “U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century”). It had warned that “Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.”

Not only did Hart-Rudman see terrorist attacks as a possibility, it highlighted five key areas for reform, the first of which was “ensuring the security of the American homeland.” It regarded a 9/11-style attack as so likely that defending against it should be a top priority in rethinking our entire approach to national security.

" . . . EIGHT Benghazi investigations yet Bush WH sat on its hands while bin Laden got ready to kill 3K Americans,” Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert tweeted. “if this story were abt Benghazi, GOP would introduce Obama impeachment proceedings today,” he followed up. Boehlert’s point is obviously valid, but even more troubling is how the lack of accountability has made things so much worse, actually crippling our ability to win the war on terror.

The failure to hold anyone accountable for 9/11 is inextricably intertwined with the broader failure to go back and rethink fundamental questions on all aspects of national security—something that was obviously needed at the time, and that remains imperative still.

Jeb, Your Brother Did Not Keep Us "Safe"

click image to enlarge

As noted in the prior post, one of the most idiotic things said during the GOP presidential "debate" on Wednesday was Jeb "Jebbie" Bush's delusional statement that his brother had kept Americans "safe."  That kind of statement is only true in the alternate universe of today's GOP and ignores the reality that George "Chimperator" Bush had warnings of a threat of an major Al Quaeda attack and ignored it.  After allowing 9-11 to happen, Jebbie's idiot brother lied and mislead the nation into an unnecessary War that took the lives of thousands of Americans and cost the nation billions and billions of dollars better spent on rebuilding America domestically.  Oh, and did I mention that the Chimperator set the stage for the rise of ISIS?  Only in an alternate universe is this keeping us "safe."  Think Progress delves further into the insanity of Jebbie's statement which shows his total unfitness for the White House.  Here are excerpts:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush doubled down on the idea that his brother “kept us safe” as president on Thursday — making an even more explicit connection to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center — the day after he made the claim during the second Republican presidential debate on CNN.

His campaign tweeted a graphic with the phrase “he kept us safe” paired with the carnage after the attacks. . . . . It’s a whitewashed version of history. 

Much of the analysis following the World Trade Center attacks revealed that the Bush administration ignored warnings that such a plot could be in the works. Declassified documents indicate that Osama bin Laden had been planning the attacks for years. But rather than preparing for potential terrorist attacks, reports indicated that the Bush administration was more focused on missile defense. 

Furthermore, even if Bush is trying to argue that it was his brother’s post-9/11 counterterrorism strategy that kept America “safe,” most evidence indicates that the war in Iraq was dangerously misguided. The Iraq war wasn’t linked to the attacks on U.S. soil, and a 2006 intelligence report indicated that the U.S. presence in Iraq actually worsened the threat of terrorism. Ultimately, nearly 5,000 American troops and other allied troops gave their lives during the war in Iraq. 

Why Is Congress Hiding the Truth About Saudi Arabia's Involvement in 9-11?

Chimperator George Bush with Saudi buddies

I usually do not buy into conspiracy theories and leave such lunacy to members of the GOP base.  But the continued refusal to declassify 28 pages of the investigation of congressional intelligence committees into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks makes one wonder what is being hidden.  This question is fanned by the reality that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Bush/Cheney regime allowed  only one flight to take off from America's airports and it was loaded with Saudis fleeing America.   The New York Times looks at the continued controversy over denying the American public all of the information compiled by the congressional committees.  If there's nothing to hide, then why act like there is some damning information.  Here are article highlights:

A still-classified section of the investigation by congressional intelligence committees into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has taken on an almost mythic quality over the past 13 years — 28 pages that examine crucial support given the hijackers and that by all accounts implicate prominent Saudis in financing terrorism.

Now new claims by Zacarias Moussaoui, a convicted former member of Al Qaeda, that he had high-level contact with officials of the Saudi Arabian government in the prelude to Sept. 11 have brought renewed attention to the inquiry’s withheld findings, which lawmakers and relatives of those killed in the attacks have tried unsuccessfully to declassify.

“I think it is the right thing to do,” said Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts and an author of a bipartisan resolution encouraging President Obama to declassify the section. “Let’s put it out there.”

Mr. Lynch and his allies have been joined by former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a leader of the inquiry. He has called for the release of the report’s Part 4, which dealt with Saudi Arabia, since President George W. Bush ordered it classified when the rest of the report was released in December 2002.

Mr. Graham has repeatedly said it shows that Saudi Arabia was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” Mr. Graham said last month as he pressed for the pages to be made public.

Proponents of releasing Part 4, titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain National Security Matters,” have suggested that the Bush and Obama administrations have held it back for fear of alienating an influential military and economic partner rather than for any national security consideration.

But there seemed to be little appetite for declassification among the Republican leaders of the intelligence panels. Senator Richard M. Burr, the North Carolina Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was skeptical of the value of releasing the pages, calling them more of a historical document in a fight against terrorism that has shifted substantially since 2002.

A side piece to the article notes as follows:

Three of the Saudi princes accused by the Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui have strong diplomatic and business ties to the United States. 

Prince Bandar bin Sultan was known as “the toast of Washington” who had an “aura of charming roguishness” when he served as Saudi ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005. He is a nephew of King Salman and King Abdullah, who died last month. Prince Bandar, 65, had been close to President George Bush and his son, President George W. Bush . . . 

Prince Turki al-Faisal, 69, is another of the king’s nephews. He replaced Prince Bandar as the Saudi ambassador in Washington in 2005 and served in that post for two years. He was the head of Saudi intelligence from 1977 until Aug. 31, 2001. . . 

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, at 59 is a grandson of Saudi Arabia's founder, King Abdulaziz, and is chairman of the Kingdom Holding Company and the wealthiest member of the royal family. . . .  He owns Rotana, the Arab world's largest entertainment company, and holds significant investments in Citigroup, TimeWarner, Twitter and Apple, among other companies.

Obviously, if the Bush/Cheney regime acted to protect those who financed the attacks, it makes perfect sense why Congressional Republicans don't want the classified section of the report made public. It would not help the GOP cause in 2016.

French Police Close in on Paris Terror Suspects

Police officer Ahmed Merabet who was murdered

Hopefully, French police will capture the two suspects in the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  The two are reportedly holed up in a town near Charles DeGaulle airport where they are reported to be holding at least one hostage.  One of the sick ironies of the whole affair is that the police officer shot and killed like a dog was Muslim himself, a fact that those fanning anti-Muslim hate - e.g., French far right politicians - need to not forget.  Just as many Christians do not support the ugly actions of  fundamentalist "Christians," a majority of Muslims do not condone the savagery and hate that are the hallmarks of Islamic fundamentalists.  The Washington Post reports on the current stand off.  Here are excerpts:

French security forces closed in Friday on the brothers suspected in France’s worst terrorist attack in generations, surrounding a commercial building outside Paris where the pair was believed holed up with at least one hostage.

The search narrowed to a printing business in Dammartin-en-Goele, about 25 miles northeast of Paris, where authorities believe the brothers headed in a stolen car. Authorities say the suspects held at least one hostage, but gave no further details.

In scenes reminiscent of recent standoffs — including last month’s hostage-taking at a Sydney cafe — French police put the area under lockdown orders, asking people to stay indoors and turn off their lights as the drama played out on an overcast afternoon.

French media, citing police sources, reported that the brothers appeared ready to make a last stand rather than surrender. It was not immediately clear what weapons they had available, but previous reports said they had Kalashnikov rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

They took refuge in the printing business after stealing a car and firing shots, French media reported.
A client at the business said he shook hands with one of the armed fugitives, believing he was a police special forces officer, France Info radio reported.

Fresh details emerged Thursday that one of the brothers had tried to meet with al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.

U.S. officials said the older of the two, Said Kouachi, is believed to have traveled to Yemen in 2011 in an effort to link up with al-Qaeda’s affiliate there at a time when that group was eclipsing the terror network’s core leadership in Pakistan as the principal threat to the United States.

U.S. officials said Kouachi may have received small-arms training and picked up other skills while in Yemen, but they described the years that followed that 2011 visit as a “kind of hole” in the timeline, with significant gaps in authorities’ understanding of the brothers’ activities and whereabouts.

French officials vowed to bring the men to justice and announced that they had taken nine people into custody in relation to the case. Authorities would not release their names, but French media said that those picked up in the dragnet included a sister of the men as well as her companion and the wife of Said Kouachi. 

“I’m afraid this is going to open a boulevard for the far right,” said Diane Tribout, 28, a public servant who joined a candlelight vigil in the Place de la Republique on Thursday, where crowds chanted, “Charlie isn’t dead!”

“On the streets of Paris, you might not see it as obviously, but I know that in small towns and villages all across France, this tragic event is going to be used to fuel anger and rage,” Tribout said.

Marine Le Pen, the head of the far-right [Neo-Nazi] National Front, which has surged in opinion polls here well before Wednesday’s attack, spoke out Thursday, calling her party the only one that had challenged the notion of “Islamic fundamentalism on our territory.”

Taliban and Extremists Retake Parts of Iraq

Some - I for one  - saw the Iraq War as a fool's errand from the out set.  Those who pushed for war and manufactured false information with which to dupe the American public, including the delusional Chimperator Bush and megalomaniac  Dick Cheney, ignored history and saw only what they wanted to see.  Now, with America finally out of Iraq after squandering the lives of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in tax dollars, what everyone sane should have foreseen is happening: the Taliban and religious extremists are resurgent and retaking portions of the country.  The reality is that as horrible as he and his regime were, Saddam Hussein was the force that held these forces in check. Now Hussein and American forces are gone and we are about to reap what Bush/Cheney sowed.  Here are excerpts from the Washington Post on the collapsing situation in Iraq:

An eruption of violence in Iraq is threatening to undo much of what U.S. troops appeared to have accomplished before they withdrew, putting the country’s stability on the line and raising the specter of a new civil war in a region already buckling under the strain of the conflict in Syria.

In the western Iraqi province of Anbar, Sunnis are in open revolt against the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Militants affiliated with al-Qaeda have taken advantage of the turmoil to raise their flag over areas from which they had been driven out by American troops, including the powerfully symbolic city of Fallujah, where U.S. forces fought their bloodiest battle since the Vietnam War.

On Monday, Maliki urged the people of Fallujah to expel al-Qaeda-­affiliated militants to avert a full-on attack, echoing calls made by U.S. forces a decade ago when they warned residents to leave the city or suffer the consequences. . . . . Instead, most residents were trying to leave, packing their possessions into cars and fleeing in any direction they could, just as they did ahead of the U.S. assault on the city in November 2004.

[M]ost analysts and Iraqis say the problem is rooted, above all, in the Maliki administration’s failure to reach out to Sunnis and include them in the decision-making processes of the coalition government, thereby enhancing a sense of Sunni alienation from the authorities in Baghdad that began when U.S. troops invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, in 2003.

“Extra weapons and drones are not going to solve this problem. In fact, they will make it worse, because it will encourage Maliki to believe there is a military solution to this problem, and that is what perpetuates civil wars,” said Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution in Washington.

The Iraqi army, demoralized and running short of supplies, has proved unable to dislodge the militants, and the ad hoc tribal militias confronting them lack weapons and ammunition, said retired Brig. Gen. Hassan Dulaimi, a former deputy police chief in Ramadi who is working with the tribal forces battling the al-Qaeda fighters.

Since 2011, the war in neighboring Syria has compounded security troubles in Iraq by creating an atmosphere of lawlessness that has allowed al-Qaeda space to organize, train and recruit just across the border. In April, the group’s Iraq affiliate renamed itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, signaling its expanded ambitions and reach, and it has since redoubled its efforts, seizing territory in Syria and embarking on an intensified campaign of bombings against mostly Shiite targets in Iraq.

The situation is a disaster - a disaster brought to us by the Bush/Cheney regime and Congressional Republicans who rubber stamped anything and everything Bush/Cheney asked for.

The Radicalization of the Republican Party

Today's Republican Party bears more resemblance to the KKK or perhaps even Al Qaeda than it does to the Republican Party of my youth and which my parents and grandparents were active supporters.  How did this happen? Two words: Christian Right.  Or perhaps more appropriately, Christofascists.  It started back in the 1980's and began to accelerate in the 1990's and the sickness worsened in the first decade of the 21st century.  Now, a metastasizing cancer has almost completely taken over the GOP and the very health and financial well being of the nation is at risk.  Yes, we hear the term "Tea Party" over and over again and again, but when you scratch the surface of the Tea Party you find that roughly 85% of the Tea Party is made up of Christian extremists who now identify with a dangerous mix of racism, religious intolerance and vehement opposition to anything they think will help those deemed as "other."  The overlap is so extensive that I've even remarked that it is as if the "Tea Party" label was invented to hide the activities of the Christofascists given their unpopularity with many Americans. A column in the New York Times looks at the morphing of the GOP into something dangerous.  Here are excerpts:

The federal government is shut down, we’re about to hit the debt ceiling (with disastrous economic consequences), and no resolution is in sight. How did this happen?

The main answer, which only the most pathologically “balanced” reporting can deny, is the radicalization of the Republican Party. As Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it last year in their book, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” the G.O.P. has become “an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”  

But there’s one more important piece of the story. Conservative leaders are indeed ideologically extreme, but they’re also deeply incompetent.

Did they talk about rethinking ideas that voters had soundly rejected? No, they talked extortion, insisting that the threat of a shutdown would induce President Obama to abandon health reform. This was crazy talk.  

But the possibility that their strategy might backfire doesn’t seem to have occurred to the would-be extortionists. Even more remarkable, in its way, was the response of House Republican leaders, who didn’t tell the activists they were being foolish. All they did was urge that the extortion attempt be made over the debt ceiling rather than a government shutdown.  . . . . Republican leaders are just beginning to suspect that Mr. Obama really means what he has been saying all along.

Many people seem perplexed by the transformation of the G.O.P. into the political equivalent of the Keystone Kops — the Boehner Bunglers? Republican elders, many of whom have been in denial about their party’s radicalization, seem especially startled. But all of this was predictable.

It has been obvious for years that the modern Republican Party is no longer capable of thinking seriously about policy.  . . . . party members believe what they want to believe, and any contrary evidence is dismissed as a hoax, the product of vast liberal conspiracies. For a while the party was able to compartmentalize, to remain savvy and realistic about politics even as it rejected objectivity everywhere else. But this wasn’t sustainable.

Everybody not inside the bubble realizes that Mr. Obama can’t and won’t negotiate under the threat that the House will blow up the economy if he doesn’t — any concession at all would legitimize extortion as a routine part of politics. Yet Republican leaders are just beginning to get a clue, and so far clearly have no idea how to back down. Meanwhile, the government is shut, and a debt crisis looms. Incompetence can be a terrible thing. 

Every sane, rational and responsible America needs to be fearful of today's GOP and the extremists who now control the party grassroots.

Death Toll Rises in Keyan - More Foul Fruits of Merger of Politics/Religion

The fruits of religion

At the moment there are 59 known dead, at least 175 injured and 30 held hostage after an Al Qaeda Somali terror group al Shabaab attack on a luxury shopping mall in Kenya.  Meanwhile at least 60 are dead as a result of a church bombing in Pakistan directed at Christians.  Thus, once again we see the evil of religion particularly when it is merged with political aspirations.  As is always the case, the aggressors are driven to impose their beliefs and agenda on all others.  Yet people ask why I am increasingly anti-religion in general.  Do they not know their history and do they not watch the news?   The BBC has some of the latest details:

At least 59 people were killed and 175 injured in Saturday's attack on a Nairobi shopping centre, Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta has said.

More than 1,000 people were brought out of the Westgate shopping centre and the rescue operation continues, Mr Kenyatta said at a news conference on Sunday.

Between 10 and 15 attackers - thought to be militants from the Somali al-Shabab movement - are still inside.

Some civilians are still trapped, either as hostages or in hiding.

Mr Kenyatta's nephew and his fiancee were among the dead, the president said.

The UK Foreign Office has confirmed that three Britons have been killed, and says the number is likely to rise.

French, Chinese, Ghanaian and Canadian citizens are also among the foreigners confirmed killed, along with a dual Australian-British national.

British Prime Minister David Cameron called it "an absolutely sickening and despicable attack of appalling brutality".

The Somali militant group al-Shabab says it carried out the attack in response to Kenyan military operations in Somalia.  There are about 4,000 Kenyan troops in the south of Somalia, where they have been fighting the militants since 2011.

The attack began at about 12:00 local time (09:00 GMT) on Saturday, when the militants entered the Westgate centre, throwing grenades and firing automatic weapons. A children's day was being held at the time - children are among those reported killed.

Witnesses report seeing many bodies strewn round tables of unfinished fast food - with pop music left playing in the background.

 Meanwhile, here in America politicians continue to give deference and respect to religious belief that is every bit as hate filled toward others, just not as violent - at least not yet.

The new U. S. Created Al-Qaeda Menace

As countless media outlets are reporting, the U.S. is closing embassies and consulates around parts of the world and has issued travel alerts for Americans traveling abroad.  Yes, Al Qaeda is a vile organization and yes, it did launch the 9-11 attacks on America.  And Al Qaeda represents religious based hate and extremism at its worse.  Yet throughout the latest dire warnings what is missing is any recognition that America's fool's errands in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the problem of Al Qaeda worse in the long run.  What better recruiting materials could one ask for than unpunished atrocities committed by American troops even as the Obama administration has sought to vigorously prosecute those like Bradley Manning who have exposed some of the foul deeds done ostensibly in America's name.  A column in the Washington Post looks at the situation.  Here are highlights:

If the new, decentralized al-Qaeda is such a threat that 19 U.S. embassies, consulates and other diplomatic posts have to be shuttered for a week, we have a decade of wrongheaded U.S. policy to blame.

The Arab Spring contributed by creating power vacuums for militant anti-Western jihadists to exploit. But myopic decision-making in Washington clearly played a huge role — and while I hope we’re getting smarter, I have my doubts.

President Obama’s decision to order the closure of U.S. outposts in much of the Muslim world drew rare bipartisan support on Capitol Hill . . . 

It’s hard to argue with prudent caution. At the same time, though, it’s hard to understand just how worried we should be. Osama bin Laden lies in a watery grave. His organization, once based in Afghanistan, is decimated. Regularly we hear news of someone described as an al-Qaeda lieutenant being blasted to his reward by a drone-fired missile. There is a disconnect between these successes and the need to close so many U.S. facilities — while issuing a general warning to travelers — in fear of another attack.

The truth is that U.S. foreign policy helped to create the decentralized al-Qaeda, a branch of which is believed to be trying to launch some kind of strike.

The most fateful choice, and the biggest strategic error, was the decision to invade Iraq. George W. Bush’s epic misadventure diverted resources and attention from the war in Afghanistan, giving a reprieve to the Taliban. The Iraq war also provided new focal points for jihadist grievance — Abu Ghraib, for example — and gave new oxygen to the simmering intra-Muslim conflict between Sunni and Shiite.

Obama has waged what amounts to a campaign of targeted assassination, decimating the ranks of the various al-Qaeda branches. This strategy has the obvious merit of not putting American lives at risk. But the inevitable collateral damage — deaths of civilians, destruction of infrastructure — helps recruit new al-Qaeda conscripts.

My argument with Obama’s policies is not that the president has tried too hard to end the “war on terror,” as hawks allege. It’s that he hasn’t tried hard enough to leave behind the “war” metaphor as ill-suited to a struggle that is fundamentally ideological.

We should think in terms of engagement, not intervention. We should spend more money projecting “soft power” and less projecting military force. We should recognize that the rest of the world will not necessarily shape itself to fit our wishes. And our goal should be to have fewer anti-American terrorists in the world, not more.

Benghazi Was Neither a Terrorist Attack Nor an Act of Terror

Some may say it is an issue of semantics, but sometimes words do have meaning and legal definitions have purposes and consequences.  Not that this reality ever crosses the minds of the Christofascist/Tea Party base of the GOP or their political whores in the GOP Congressional caucus.  Their sole focus is on trashing Barack Obama and to a slightly lesser extent Hillary Clinton.  They have proposed little in the way of solid policy proposals and instead seek only obstruction and attacks on the White House.  Yes, it scores points with the increasingly ignorant base of the GOP - a large portion of which has no idea where Benghazi even is - but it lends nothing towards moving the nation forward or solving pressing issues.  A piece in the American Prospect lays out what calling the Beghazi attack terrorism or an act terror is not correct.  Here are excerpts:

I am hereby declaring 99 Pinocchios on Barack Obama, all the people who work for him, everyone in the Republican party, and most everyone in the press who has reported on Benghazi.

This is about what has to be one of the most inane disagreements in the history of American politics, the argument about whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" or a "terrorist attack." Incredibly, people are still bickering over this. The other day Darrell Issa expressed his outrage that Obama had, in his diabolical attempt to cover up the incident, used the phrase "act of terror," which, let's be honest, is almost like saying, "Way to go, al Qaeda!", instead of using the far, far, far more condemnatory phrase "terrorist attack." It's like the difference between saying "steaming pile of bullshit" when you ought to say "steaming bullshit pile"—anyone who can't tell the difference between the two obviously can't be trusted to run the country.

But here's what nobody seems to get: Benghazi was not a terrorist act. Or an act of terror. Or an act of terrorism.

Before my Republican friends start getting red in the face, that doesn't mean it wasn't awful. Many awful things are not terrorism. Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. Jeffrey Dahmer's murders weren't terrorism.  .  .  .  .   Terrorism is something quite specific: the intentional killing of civilians in order to achieve a political end. It's the "civilian" part that makes it terrorism and not something else. Perhaps some conservatives think that any violent action committed by Muslims is terrorism, but it isn't.-

As it happens, there's a nice succinct definition of terrorism in U.S. law, section 2656f(d) of Title 22 of the United States Code, which reads, "the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

So why wasn't Benghazi terrorism? Because the people targeted weren't civilians. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, "The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said." CIA officials are not civilians. That doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or painful for their families, but it's the truth. Nor is a CIA outpost a civilian target.

Of all the things you could say about Benghazi, why is this the one Republicans are so obsessed with? My guess is because they have so little else to work with. But they're being abetted by the Obama administration, which continues to play this game, because they've bought into the idea that if you call an attack "terrorism," that means you're really mad about it and you'll be tough and strong in your response, while if you call it something else you're not very mad and you'll be all wimpy about it.

Well said and accurate.

Al Qaeda Joins Ranks With NOM and Family Researc Council

I often refer to the Christofascists and the hysterically anti-gay professional Christian crowd as the Christian Taliban because their desire for an over throw of democracy in favor of a theocracy mirrors that of the Taliban and its allies in Al Qaeda.  Now, the merger of the two forms of religious based hatred and oppression are on the verge of merging as Al Qaeda joins NOM and Family Research Council in attacking gay marriage and Barack Obama for his emerging recognition of the rights of LGBT Americans.  Here are highlights from Joe Jervis' blog that look at the alignment of these hate organizations:

The Family Research Council and NOM have a new ally in the battle against same-sex marriage. Yesterday Al Qaeda published the above full-page graphic in Inspire, their English-language magazine. Will Brian Brown or Tony Perkins denounce their new BFFs? Or will this be one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of things? 

As the New York Daily News reports in an article entitled TORCHING, AMBUSH and HIT LISTS: Newest issue of Al Qaeda magazine 'Inspire' is Out With lots of How-toTips for Homegrown Terrorists, Inspire magazine is full of hints and tips that ought to frighten sane, law abiding Americans.  Here are a few highlights:

The magazine typically showcases graphic features that explain how to carry out non-traditional acts of terrorism.

The latest issue, which unapologetically shows readers how to turn a parking lot into a massive fire bomb, is no exception.

In a section titled "Open Source Jihad," writers explain to readers how to blow up parking lots and cause horrific car accidents. The instructions, which include "don't get petrol on yourself" are very thorough.

Another terrifying feature titled “Causing Road Accidents,” by an author identified only by the alias AQ Chef, outlines how, “following simple instructions,” you, too, “can carry out a lethal ambush.”

“There is no retaliation face to face, just place and vanish,” states the article, which painstakingly reveals how to grease windy roads with oil so thoroughly that cars slip off it and crash.

But the latest issue of Inspire doesn’t focus solely on lethal techniques. It also harps on specific murder targets.  In yet another perverted section, this one titled “Yes We Can: A Bullet A Day Keep The Infidel Away,” the magazine lays out a hit list list of men “WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE FOR CRIMES AGAINST ISLAM.”

Huffington Post also looks at NOM and FRC's new ideological ally on the issue of gay marriage.  The saying goes that one is known by the company they keep and on the issue of gays and gay marriage, NOM, FRC, the Mormon Church, Roman Catholic Church - and yes, the GOP - are keeping some very scary company.

The Dictatorship of House Republicans

Right now the biggest threat to America isn't Al Qaeda and would be Islamic terrorists.  Rather, it is the Republican extremists in the House of Representatives who continue to hold the nation hostage and display a continued willingness to harm the lives and finances of a majority of Americans in order to pander to the ugliest elements of the increasingly, racist, religious extremist, and mentally unhinged GOP base.  Sadly, because of the successful gerrymandering of congressional districts in GOP controlled state legislatures like Virginia's it will be difficult to unseat many of these domestic saboteurs for years to come.  An editorial in the New York Times looks at this disturbing threat to democracy and the future of the country.  Here are excerpts:

The only reason that income taxes on 99 percent of Americans did not go up this month was that Speaker John Boehner briefly broke with an iron rule of Republican control over the House. He allowed the fiscal-cliff deal to be put to a full vote of the House even though a strong majority of Republicans opposed it.

[U]nder the majority-of-the-majority rule in the House, Democrats are completely cut out of the governing process, not even given a chance to vote unless Republicans have decided to pass something. Since 2010, there have been enough extremist Republicans in the caucus to block consideration of most of the bills requested by the White House or sent over from the Senate. If President Obama is for something, it’s a safe bet that most House Republicans are against it, and thus won’t bring it up. 

That’s why the House never took a vote on the Senate’s latest five-year farm bill. Or the Violence Against Women Act. Or a full six-year transportation bill. Republican opposition prevented consideration in the last term of the Senate’s $60 billion in providing relief from Hurricane Sandy; so far, the House has been willing to approve only a measly $9.7 billion. . . .

This anti-democratic tactic, now known as the “Hastert rule,” helped turn the chamber into a one-party institution that utterly silenced the minority. A post-9/11 intelligence reform bill, urgently sought by President George W. Bush, was bottled up by Mr. Hastert and his allies, who knew it would pass if Democrats were allowed to vote. 

This was not a rule used by Democrats. Speaker Tom Foley allowed the North American Free Trade Agreement to pass in 1993 on mostly Republican votes, and when Nancy Pelosi took the job in 2007, she repudiated the Hastert rule, allowing both parties to vote together on legislation. 

[I]f the country is to move forward on issues with widespread support — getting past the debt limit, immigration reform, gun control, and investments in education and infrastructure — he [John Boehner] will have to let the two parties vote together on a solution. 

Candidly, I am not going to hold my breath.  Today's GOP puts partisan games and ass kissing extremist ahead of the country's best interests and certainly the best interests of the majority of American families.  It's yet another reason I can not support any Republican.

U. S. Afghan Nation-Building Programs not Sustainable

A version of this post's headline is the lead story in today's Washington Post. Tell us something any mediocre student of Afghanistan's history could have deduced a decade ago. For over two millennium no outside power has ever been able to successfully conquer and recast Afghanistan for any notable period of time. The last to arguably do so was Alexander the Great who married into the feudal like war lord hierarchy in order to pull it off. But none of history's lessons mattered to the American hubris that led the nation to war under Chimperator Bush in both Afghanistan and then Iraq. Now, billions of wasted dollars later and thousands of wasted lives later, a report says that the U. S. goal in Afghanistan is crumbling and is not sustainable. When are our leaders - especially our military leaders - going to start facing reality? The Middle East adventure begun by the Chimperator and Emperor Palpatine Cheney has always been a fools errand. Here are story highlights:
*
The hugely expensive U.S. attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan has had only limited success and may not survive an American withdrawal, according to the findings of a two-year congressional investigation to be released Wednesday.
*
The report calls on the administration to rethink urgently its assistance programs as President Obama prepares to begin drawing down the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan this summer.
*
The report, prepared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority staff, comes as Congress and the American public have grown increasingly restive about the human and economic cost of the decade-long war and reflects growing concerns about Obama’s war strategy even among supporters within his party.
*
[I]t says that the enormous cash flows can overwhelm and distort local culture and economies, and that there is little evidence the positive results are sustainable. The report also warns that the Afghan economy could slide into a depression with the inevitable decline of the foreign military and development spending that now provides 97 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
*
Even when U.S. development experts determine that a proposed project “lacks achievable goals and needs to be scaled back,” the U.S. military often takes it over and funds it anyway, the report says. It also cites excessive use and poor oversight of contractors.
*
[A]n increasing number of lawmakers on both sides have called for a more wholesale reconsideration of Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan, saying that the war’s cost cannot be sustained at a time of domestic economic hardship. They point as well to changing realities on the ground, including signs of growing extremist violence in Pakistan and the killing last month of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
*
Last week, the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan said in a separate report that billions of dollars in U.S.-funded reconstruction projects in both countries could fall into disrepair over the next few years because of inadequate planning to pay for their ongoing operations and maintenance. That report warned that “the United States faces new waves of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
*
Foreign aid expenditures by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in Afghanistan, about $320 million a month, pale beside the overall $10 billion monthly price tag for U.S. military operations.
*
[E]vidence of successful aid programs based on “counterinsurgency theories” is limited, the Senate committee report says. “Some research suggests the opposite, and development best practices question the efficacy of using aid as a stabilization tool over the long run.”
*
Other than a quick, limited assault on the Taliban (something Bush/Cheney screwed up), the U.S. should never have gone into Afghanistan. Now, the question is how many more billions of dollars and how many more lives will be squandered for nothing? We need to get out now.