Napolitano Backpedals

Let's see:

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.
Click to expand...


Sounds about right to me.
 
What threats were those?

evince said:
I agree this man should run for office, he should campaing and present ideas in an adult manner and show he is adult enough to defend his ideas without resorting to threats on the lives of his fellow Americans because they are the majority.
Click to expand...
 
evince said:
I agree this man should run for office, he should campaing and present ideas in an adult manner and show he is adult enough to defend his ideas without resorting to threats on the lives of his fellow Americans because they are the majority.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to publish my real Identity on here, I could give you dozens of websites that I'm all over being 'adult' enough to defend my ideas.

Lets not be stupid enough to assume that EVERYTHING a person publishes on a message board as indicative of all they are.
 
Desh, would you please stop using the "adult" word? There are seniors here who may suffer from heart conditions, so try not to attack us with such laughable terms...
 
But see, from the elite point of view, americans are the enemy. The elites are being incented by foreign powers to destroy the lives of americans. Napolitano is our enemy.
 
Napolitano is an incompetent boob. She said the 9/11 killers got into the US through Canada. How in the hell did she get the job?

TuTu Monroe said:
Napolitano shot herself in the foot with this one and it isn't going away. Seriously, does anyone feel safe with this idiot in charge? This is a disgrace.



By JOE MURRAY, The Bulletin

Friday, April 17, 2009
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano was forced to rethink the wording of a controversial government report after veterans groups and Republican lawmakers charged it suggested veterans of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars could easily turn into right-wing extremists. This, they said, was offensive.

The report, published April 7, detailed what DHS called a resurgence of “right-wing extremism brought about by the current economic downturn and the election of the nation’s first black president.” It was prepared by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

The report also described those who belong to groups that advocate for conservative perspectives on issues such as immigration reform, gun rights and abortion were extremists.

Among the most prominent groups raising an objection was the American Legion. The group’s president wrote a letter to Ms. Napolitano reminding the DHS Secretary American veterans should not be considered the enemy.
“I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are,” David K. Rehbein wrote in the letter.

Earlier in the week Ms. Napolitano defended the report and argued DHS was monitoring risks, not ideology.

“Let me be very clear — we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States,” Ms. Napolitano said in a statement Wednesday. “We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism, whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.”

Ms. Napolitano’s tone, however, changed remarkably Thursday after public pressure started to mount and more mainstream media outlets started covering the story.

“I know that some veterans groups were offended by the fact that veterans were mentioned in this assessment, so I apologize for that offense. It was certainly not intended,” she told CNN’s “American Morning.”

Ms. Napolitano said she plans on meeting with veterans groups next week and pointed out some recognized the importance of the assessment.

A statement released Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, acknowledged the assessment “should have been worded differently,” but nonetheless acknowledged the report’s intended purpose.

“A government that does not assess internal and external security threats would be negligent of a critical public responsibility,” he said.

Critics, however, pounced on the “assessment” and claimed the report was not meant to assess a threat because no credible evidence to show such a threat existed. Opponents argue the report was meant to marginalize those who disagree with the Obama administration’s policies.

“This is an outrageous ‘assessment’ of extremism, and it gives the appearance that the administration is politicizing homeland-security issues to generate fear about people and groups that disagree with their policies,” said U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Texas. “Genuine threat assessments are one thing, but there is a line that distinguishes between an actual threat versus citizens simply exercising their constitutional right to free speech in speaking out against this administration’s reckless public policies.”

In releasing the report, a DHS spokesperson admitted it did not possess specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists were currently planning acts of violence, but justified the assessment by arguing right-wing extremists may be gaining new recruitments by playing on their fears about several emerging “issues.” All issues listed were conservative.

But the fact that the report cited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, a veteran, raised concern that DHS was basing its assessment on an outdated stereotype.

“Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime,” wrote Mr. Rehbein. “To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical ‘disgruntled military veteran’ is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.”

Others believed the report was more sinister in nature.

“There is not one instance they can cite as evidence where any of these right-wing groups have done anything,” popular conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show. “You have a report from Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama, Department of Homeland Security portraying standard, ordinary, everyday conservatives as posing a bigger threat to this country than al-Qaida terrorists or genuine enemies of this country like Kim Jong Il.”

Some lawmakers called on President Barack Obama to distance his administration from the report and make a pledge to engage a public-policy debate, not equate dissenters with terrorists.

“Political opponents have no business being labeled ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’ unless solid studies and evidence prove that to be the case,” Mr. Carter said. “I hope that the president will demand answers from DHS concerning the production of this obvious political document masquerading as a homeland security report and will take the necessary steps to guarantee that a debacle like this will not occur in the future.”

Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
Click to expand...
 
AssHatZombie said:
But see, from the elite point of view, americans are the enemy. The elites are being incented by foreign powers to destroy the lives of americans. Napolitano is our enemy.
Click to expand...

When you divide people into elite and common(?) workers (?) then national boundaries have little relevance. The rich and powerful of America have more in common and show more loyalty towards the rich and powerful in Europe, the Middle East or Asia than to other Americans. That is why you will never win by logical argument. The only way for ordinary people to secure true democracy and to determine their own future is to seize power. Power is NEVER given up voluntarily and NEVER will be. Seize does NOT mean armed conflict it simply means that the shear weight of numbers must be used. (I had to say that before some gun crazed yank took it as some sort of justification for more mass shootings.)
The UK did it in the 60s when we finally told our aristocrats they were neither entitled nor suited to govern us.
 
Lowaicue said:
When you divide people into elite and common(?) workers (?) then national boundaries have little relevance. The rich and powerful of America have more in common and show more loyalty towards the rich and powerful in Europe, the Middle East or Asia than to other Americans. That is why you will never win by logical argument. The only way for ordinary people to secure true democracy and to determine their own future is to seize power. Power is NEVER given up voluntarily and NEVER will be. Seize does NOT mean armed conflict it simply means that the shear weight of numbers must be used. (I had to say that before some gun crazed yank took it as some sort of justification for more mass shootings.)
The UK did it in the 60s when we finally told our aristocrats they were neither entitled nor suited to govern us.
Click to expand...

National Boundaries matter at this point because these boundaries are the different zones of martial control. and make no mistake, the globalists will always rally around the flag when it comes to asserting their own right to use force to maintain control.

Elites believe in national government but only inasmuch as local laws can be used to subjugate populations to the agendas of international corporations.
 
the idea of using government to protect people from fascists is pretty funny, if you think about it. Fascists use government to destroy people.
 
Elitism is the social illness destroying all humanity. Elitists impose a hieararchy of abuse on society and destroy lateral connections between people.
 
evince said:
....

The biggest most horrible act of domestic terror in this countries history was commited by a small cabal of right wing crazies who had gotten their ideas from the railing right radio and they were ex military.
....
Click to expand...

Do I need to remind you that the most domestic terrorists are liberal: environmentalists?
 
Lowaicue said:
The only way for ordinary people to secure true democracy and to determine their own future is to seize power. Power is NEVER given up voluntarily and NEVER will be. Seize does NOT mean armed conflict it simply means that the shear weight of numbers must be used. (I had to say that before some gun crazed yank took it as some sort of justification for more mass shootings.)
The UK did it in the 60s when we finally told our aristocrats they were neither entitled nor suited to govern us.
Click to expand...
The problem with doing a non-violent 'seizure' of power in this country is that it will never happen. We've got a government that will use violence and lethal force to maintain control as history has proven time and again.

no, non-violence against the US government just isn't an option.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The problem with doing a non-violent 'seizure' of power in this country is that it will never happen. We've got a government that will use violence and lethal force to maintain control as history has proven time and again.

no, non-violence against the US government just isn't an option.
Click to expand...
Unless real change can be had through voting.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
only so long as that government abides by the votes and the laws.
Click to expand...
We've had a real problem with that lately, since elections have gotten real close. Look at the Democrat shenanigans by certain Florida counties in 2000 and by Franken in Minnesota. I believe that our founders understood the value of a free press in policing this type of illegality but since they have become so overwhelmingly liberal they have become co-conspirators. Obama realizes this which is why he is prepared to bail out the failing liberal New York Times, et al.
 
Southern Man said:
We've had a real problem with that lately, since elections have gotten real close. Look at the Democrat shenanigans by certain Florida counties in 2000 and by Franken in Minnesota. I believe that our founders understood the value of a free press in policing this type of illegality but since they have become so overwhelmingly liberal they have become co-conspirators. Obama realizes this which is why he is prepared to bail out the failing liberal New York Times, et al.
Click to expand...

Bigger than that are the rumors that this administration will be giving Cap and Trade contracts to GE who own MSNBC...a little pay back. This is bigger than Watergate if true and the proof that a Free Press died in 08!
 
Ice Dancer said:
Bigger than that are the rumors that this administration will be giving Cap and Trade contracts to GE who own MSNBC...a little pay back. This is bigger than Watergate if true and the proof that a Free Press died in 08!
Click to expand...
Its all dead now except for talk radio and FNC. Democrats in Congress are attacking radio with the Fairness Doctrine and liberals have been demonizing FNC nearly since its inception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top