Why Intel Rep Rogers, Peter King and GOP are wrong about anti-muslim film and attacks in Libya

I bet the State Department, Obama, and CIA never thought that the GOP would rather fight them than those responsible for what occurred in Benghazi. But perhaps this is due to the confusion that pervades the GOP consciousness regarding Muslims, extremists, and the worst enemy of the United States, the Democratic Party.

Who would have thought on September 12, 2012, that the most important person to attack would be Susan Rice instead of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Who would have thought that those 3 would have been more attacked than extremists in Libya who attacked and raided the mission and annex in Benghazi. Doesn’t surprise me to see the shift in attitude when opportunism strikes.

The GOP have hated that Barack Obama outclassed their GWOT tactics and kept up attacks despite not putting more troops in the countries in question: Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya. They hated that they couldn’t out hawk the hawkish Obama and his hawkish advisors, especially during an election. Instead, they sought to paint him as an apologist for American ways. While this rouse might work on the American voters, it didn’t, it doesn’t work on the broader international community who are not pinning their hopes on Mitt Romney. The beauty of America’s limits often shine when such a contrast is drawn between what American voters think the world should do and what the rest of the world is simply going to do.

However, that is the disconnect that is part of the consciousness of the GOP. They hate Muslims, lets call it like it is. They serve as the antipode of these extremists they wail about in their daily call to prayer. They validate to these extremists that this is indeed a War on Islam, not simply a war against violent criminals. No need for Bin Laden to do this work, Peter King is the best propagandist Bin Laden could have ever asked for. Imagine you’re a recruiter for extremist causes and your enemy has a putz like Peter King who not only condemns your very existence, but he is willing to try US citizens in the court of public opinion no different than Joseph McCarthy did with his anti-commie red scare. Peter King doesn’t get how he is part of this equation. He sees himself the noble warrior against the “terrorists”.

King isn’t alone in the Congress, of course. He is just one of the loudest in what has become a lockstep party of ignorance and indifference to cultural differences. If it isn’t Anglo Saxon Protestant, Fuck It. Those Heathens Will Be Tamed! He is joined at the hip by a very vocal caucus that should be called the anti-muslim caucus. They are equally anti-constitutionalist in that they run all over the 1st amendment in both free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious expression rights.

Look at how Bachmann, King, Golmert and others go on and on with Terror Baby garbage and then ask why they don’t notice how a movie like Innocence of Muslims is going to lead to what we saw occur for days in the Muslim world. To them Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a hero, a modern day poet of honesty about the vile Muslims who must be destroyed so Jesus can come back and rid us of these Democrats. There is no real reason to believe these wingnuts in the GOP will ever deal with facts honestly. They spent 4 years trying to convince everyone that Barack Obama was secretly Muslim, that he was really born in Kenya, that your lightbulbs are at risk, and that the real reason the economy sucks is Barack Obama. People who deal with reality with such irreverence shouldn’t be quoted by Wolf Blitzer, Washington Post, and others without a big asterisk. At least the freaks like Allen West, a man so confused he actually lied to people in claiming as a Lt. Col, dismissed in disgrace, he had more clearance than POTUS? This went quite unchecked as he was allowed to come on and parade his goonery on TV. But he’s gone now. What about Mike Rogers, the seemingly dignified former FBI agent who has shown from the beginning he knows little of the Muslim world. He’s just another American institutionalist who has been over briefed and under informed.

Because these white arrogant males refuse to see how their repeatedly racist policies, actions, comments, and behaviors, have been viewed around the world….they refuse to understand how a simple trailer can create so much ruckus. They blindly chalk an event like Benghazi as “it was a terrorist event!” This means what?
Lets assume we can divine a few meanings of this phrasing…

A terrorist event by their definitions would be organized simply to attack, cause harm for no other purpose than to affect the politics, posture, or position of their authority. This very crude definition does nothing to stop ‘terrorism’ of course, it simply tags everything the same way. Is an event like Benghazi the same as the WTC attacks? Spain bombings?  IRA v UK? Tamil Tigers? Is this the same sort of assassination as we saw with Bhutto or Sadat? They want you to believes so. The hyperventilation by these idiots has stomped all over the memory of the people killed Sept 11-12, 2012. They howled the outrage to the point they started revealing fairly obscure information. They have no revealed tactical decisions of in the protection of diplomats, they have revealed the names of the contract companies they use to protect their diplomats, you can learn about how many guards they are likely to employ to protect VIPS, and what the fall back measures are likely to be. Great Job, Issa!

These fools spent more time revealing the nature of securing VIPS that they spent zero time understanding the causation behind these events. Yes, there is a need to discuss the interconnection between Nakoula Basselly Nakoula, Terry Jones, Frank Gaffney, Pam Geller, and the targets of their scorn. They are not simply exercising their free speech rights. They are inciting riots from what they see as a safe haven in the first amendment. Is the film a first amendment violation? I think we can all agree SCOTUS would never agree. But that doesn’t matter because I can exercise my first amendment rights and say its utter garbage meant to piss off and offend people and that the schmuck behind it doesn’t deserve my support and shared portion of protection. I’d just as easily drop ship his ass to the middle of Derna and let them have him. He should have the courage of his convictions, right?

But politicians did this crazy dance about protecting our rights, and that in America we have the right to be offensive, racist, hateful of Islam, and nobody will do anything about it. Meanwhile, we send out ambassadors to poke the finger in the eye of anyone who dare object to this offense. If we had 50% of Americans call the Chinese an offensive racist term en masse, you’d still have the GOP step up and say, “we have freedom of speech here. We can’t do anything about it.” This is a chickenshit and very unenlightened view of the role of free speech on the part of the GOP and their DNC parrots. Freedom of speech doesn’t limit someone from barking right back at an idiot.

Why is it so important for the GOP and their typical apologists to remove any causation associated with the Cairo protests? We know the Cairo protests were called for as a reaction to the film and to Terry Jones and his “Judge Mohammed” day, Sept 11th. There is no dispute about this fact. The Grand Mufti of Cairo called for those protests on Sept 9th, so not really a hidden call to tell the US to get its act together. In the early morning hours of Sept 11th, the US news media was discussing the protests in Cairo. By midday the news chatter was showing the embassy in Cairo being breached. It showed journalists like Ben Weideman interviewing people who were yelling “why you insult the prophet” as he attempted to explain the US doesn’t arrest people for film making. We know that the embassy perimeter was breached, U.S. flag torn down and replaced with “al-Qaida” flag. For those who don’t know the “al-Qaida” flag, it is a black flag that has Shahada script saying there is “no God but Allah and Mohammed is Allah’s messenger.” Now, many groups use this flag besides al-Qaida, but you won’t hear much chatter on that unless you’re a good wonk.

Why would it matter if anyone was upset about this film? Well, aside from the lack of support from the local population, you have guards who are not going to stand by you in Libya, or elsewhere when you insult their prophet. They may look a blind eye at general U.S. policy, but their faith, even when light in many ways, is not going to be insulted by the contracting company, the government, or other. We have been told by AP and Reuters reporters that locals were indeed upset about the revelation of a film, they likely hadn’t seen, but who cares if they saw it, they were upset about it.

The GOP wants to beat up a strawman over and over. This strawman is the “there was no protest in Benghazi! This was a terrorist attack.” Part of this strawman is the idea that spontaneous events do not relate to armed militants. From the GOP view, they had to have planned this in advance (no evidence), that they knew the Ambassador was in residence (no evidence), that there were no demonstrations (despite reports from AP and Reuters reporters like Hadeel Al-Shalchi @hadeelalsh).

Then we have the rightwing rag, The Washington Times, a Moonie front, that typically panders rightwing talking points. But they say: “One of the consulate’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.” How did the “militant” know this?

Perhaps, we need a reminder of earlier events revolving around insulting Islam or Mohammed. It doesn’t take much work to do so, but we’ll start with the most significant one…one that happened in Benghazi.

11 People died as a result of this protest on February 18, 2006 as a result of the outrage over insulting Mohammed. Why would the GOP want us to believe this time they were the lone country that was not offended? This makes zero sense.

Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper and other publications can easily tell you about the fervor that can be caused by such events as publishing offensive anti-Muslim or anti-Mohammed materials. It doesn’t take long to look up the track record on this one.

Then we have the reaction to the presence of “Ansar Al-Sharia” and the ignorance that makes this presence seem, out of the ordinary. What is easy to see now for even the most common American, the law enforcement of Benghazi is a shared net of militias that include groups like Ansar Al-Sharia. Those militias were dissolved after the September attack, but anachronisms won’t be necessary. Typical American arrogance would make this a big deal. American policy yappers have no qualms about invading other countries with either armies or opinions. But what do the people of Benghazi feel? In one case, we have a quote from one of the members of Ansar al-Sharia who said, “we’ll just go back to the jobs we already have. This was always a volunteer effort.”

To the ignorant American, all people who join in groups that oppose U.S. policy are extremist. This sort of on-off processing is defied by the facts and leads to a bad set of analysis. If one thinks that a “terrorist’ cannot be reformed, then what policy do you write in accordance? If you think that some can be dissuaded from violence protests into more productive dialogue, then another policy is likely to be written. When you ignore the proclaimed list of offenses as silly and not worth your attention. This is common in WASPY America. Repeatedly WASPY Americans ignore the complaints of non-WASPs. They ignore the cultural differences until they laugh at anyone who claims they are racist, sexist, or other form of bigots. So how do you expect them to understand the offense of pissing on a prophet in another religion from another land that they already despise and mock.

The mockery of Islam is not helping the fight against terrorism. If you spend any time with a counter-terror specialist, they are working over time to separate the “I’m doing this for Islam” rhetoric from the actions themselves and demonstrating who is actually harming the most Muslims in the world are actually those who claim to be promoting it. If you spent any time talking about how they intend to end or subdue these groups, they point to programs that work to identify militants who will turn away from violence. This gets mocked by phony advocates of winning a war on terrorism. The louder the mock, the less field experience in their portfolio. In fact, the most consistent voices in the anti-muslim choir have zero military experience much less experience dealing with the Muslim world. Frank Gaffney, Pam Geller, Terry Jones, Bridgit Gabriel, Sean Hannity, and the like spend their days and nights trying to tell you about terrible Islam. They have big shows, hearings, and panels about it.

So long as you can’t find offense in the offensive, you can’t do the math that includes offensive behavior in the causation of events. The facts are clear about what happened in Cairo, Tunisia, and elsewhere, but the GOP wants Benghazi to remain a fog. They want to find something to put their foot on and go back to being the big daddy on defense. In doing so, they will lie about anything apparently, including whether a film can be a causation of a militant attack. And for Susan Rice, or others, to walk those comments back, is just as pathetic. I don’t set my moral compass by either party. I don’t set my fact finding on simply proving one right and one wrong.  The facts often leave parties on the shoulder of the highway. This event is little different.

While the militants are responsible for their actions, while the State Dept didn’t do enough to protect its VIPS and CIA project, and while the administration should be fairly prone to knowing how to respond, it would be utterly ignorant to exclude the Innocence of Muslim film by Nakoula Bassely Nakoula from this set of events. I would have almost forgotten about his presence in all of this if not for the Herculean effort to ignore him, the film, and its role. They’re lying through their teeth.


Asthma relief-Rising above politics

Friends, I know this sounds insane, but I need you to help support a Republican sponsored bill. Why this bill?

HR 6190 allows for the sale of remaining Primatene Mist inhaler stock (no

 further manufacturing of CFC inhalers is taking place) to allow relief until FDA approves the new replacement that are CFC free.The sponsor, R-Michael Burgess is one of those Republicans you love to hate, but…he is an asthmatic. On this side of the revolution, I know a dozen asthmatics in the same boat. As we say, “their longs don’t know red from blue when they’re laying on the ground with their lungs filled”

So, I’m asking you to help me spread the word that, despite the author, The bill is real short and straight to the point. It needs to pass within the next couple of weeks or we have no chance of it being useful. Inhalers are for instant relief…delay this bill…and it might be too late for many.

Why this bill is important: Primatene is over the counter. For those who cannot afford a doctor visit, this is the only help. When money is no object, there are still many who cannot use clenbuteral and other medications. We should help asthmatics by both improving remedies and improving our environment.

it is not lost on us that CFCs are harming ozone layer. We simply need to provide relief now and we already have stock around the country that can be provided before end of year.

Thank you,

Congrats to John Fugelsang for his new show. It has been rather refreshing to see him on several outlets lately. Now, Fugelsang goes direct!

Why is Lance Armstrong on defense instead of Jose Rodriguez, Dick Cheney, Bruce Jessen or James Mitchell?


The priorities in this country are whacked beyond belief. Today we learn that Roger Clemens is found not guilty of lying to Congress related to juicing the ball. At the same time, we’re hearing that Lance Armstrong will be additionally investigated for doping in 2009-2010 based on inference analysis not real detection and on the word of known liars and known dopers.

Yet, Jose Rodriguez goes out and tells us his role in international crimes and we do nothing. What the hell does this tell you about why we’re a laughing stock around the world? Why can Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell walk the streets and yet lesser consequential people are being dragged up all the time for far more scrutiny than these two torture architects?

This is the cost of investigating a Baseball player.
Think about how many children could get a good meal if we spent that money to help them in the mornings instead of chasing down a single athlete with those dollars.

Roger Clemons was accused of lying to Congress about steroids. Big old boy stuck to his guns and the government’s case didn’t convince all the jury. The resulting mistrial should invite us to ask, “was it worth it?” or “was the money well spent?”

Case against Armstrong
Lance Armstrong has been accused. Accusations are easy to make. Did he dope? Did he seek unfair advantages along with an entourage of insiders? After a federal investigation into Armstrong was dropped in February 2012, we should have already asked, why are we paying them to go after people in this manner?

See, the case against Armstrong before February actually had  reasons tax payers should want to know. The case was asking did US Postal Service Team use tax payer money related doping and/or did their doping constitute fraud. It was technically a money laundering case. These things are important when asking if tax payers paid for that activity.

But what if the question isn’t the people’s resources. If the case isn’t about the people’s resources, but a hunt to purify the body of human beings for sport, this isn’t a good use of people’s resources and amounts to what I would consider a violation of my 4th Amendment rights. However, I do not have the ‘right’ to race in sanction races without permission and permission is granted based on conditions. One set of conditions has to do with advantages via  doping. I don’t care if those entities test for access. When it comes to government resources though, we don’t need to be policing our professional athletes with government money.

What could we do instead?
Focus those same dollars on campaigns to stop the youth entering sports from considering doing these things by actively showing them the consequences. Let them understand that in the end, the shortcuts aren’t worth the risks. Many won’t listen but that isn’t your role. Make sure for instance that HGH isn’t found in High School sports.

Truth is, doping and cycling are hooked at the hip. Only a handful of my favorites never confessed or were busted in any way for doping but the greats that I looked up to were. Merckx, Anquetil, Moser,  and others were either busted or professed. Laurent Fignon may have died as  a consequence of his doping. But they are no less miraculous to me.

There are better ways to deal with this issue than racking up a witness list of liars and cheats. Asking Floyd Landis to take the stand is a futile task. I’m not even a lawyer and I could rip his credibility in seconds and sit down and be absolutely confident that the jury would not trust him. He’s the Floyd who cried “Lance”.


We rant and rave about accountability in politicians but do we do anything when they don’t come through? We repeatedly vote these jokes back into office to screw us over and over again. They use our contempt against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc to their own gain then forget those aims when they get up in the House and forget who sent them there, the promises made to get that vote, and the law they swore to uphold.

Why can Jose Rodriguez pimp his book in primetime without sanction? Why wasn’t he arrested the next day because he clearly and publicly admitted to torture. If Lance Armstrong had said, “I doped” months ago, he’d have faced far more serious consequences.

THIS IS ABSURD!!!! This turns our country on its ear.

We have more scrutiny of Lindsey Lohan than Bruce Jessen and Jessen’s actions have international consequences. Ask anyone “who is lindsey lohan and what has she done wrong?” then ask “who is Jose Rodriguez and what did he do wrong?”

The answer will show you what is wrong with this ‘nation’.

Can we all just get along for Rodney King?

I’m saddened at the news of the death of Rodney King. I don’t know Mr. King but like many watched him over the years after his beating and the L.A. riots. He always seemed a gentle man, though he may have had problems. He seemed focused on trying to be happy in this violent and chaotic world.

Consider his message after all these years, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Have we done this? In some areas…Yes. Consider the tensions in L.A. and how this event brought out lots of the subsurface problems that plagued not only L.A. but other cities. These problems included police behavior, tensions between immigrant shop owners and other members of the poor community who felt offended by treatment in their stores. A reflection on these conflicts helped  many communities across the country.

I remember some of the meetings I went to in NYC after the events in L.A. Several community organizers were holding discussions to find out where we were in the rest of the country. Stories related to treatment by police officers, profiling by shop owners, and unresolved economic progress was all the topic. Many were asking, “what did we suffer for all those years ago?”

Those in L.A, I’d love to hear what you think about the change in the atmosphere between the days of the trial, verdict and riots and today. My sense from the couple of times I’ve been back to L.A. is that it is different. But as an outsider, I’d miss it anyway.

In other cities, I can tell you there were noticeable differences. Many people across divides were more willing to come out and speak on these topics. Groups like CopWatch became more common and acceptable. There is a whole generation who doesn’t know the intense feeling of watching Rodney King being beaten like we saw. They weren’t born in the same innocence experienced in America before the days of personal video cameras could capture the unsightly.

I grew up with few fears. I think I was more afraid of being knocked out by a baseball line drive than being kidnapped. I wasn’t afraid of killer bees or any bees. I wasn’t afraid to drink the water from streams near my house in the Ozarks. I didn’t have the glare of eyes on me when I walked in to stores as a youth and was unaware of many problems that faced the world outside huge headlines. My naivety was reinforced by parents who always projected an optimism about the world despite being rather informed about its problems. They didn’t discuss politics with me or much with each other.

So life about the world abroad didn’t happen until I started travelling with friends as a teen in the 70s and even then we weren’t exactly headed to the next protest when we would. A trip to Kansas City wasn’t exactly going to produce an eye-opening experience that would bring Stokley Charmichael in my world or open me up to the poetry of Gil Scott Heron. No, I wouldn’t find that until I went to NYC and started trying to get some college done. I had a friend in the first year who was hyper aware of the world at a level that inspired me to look into whatever she could talk about. She had been active in several groups on campus and was always using language about “empowerment” and “consciousness”. It didn’t take long for her to turn me on to the words of Ginsberg, the teaching of John Henrik Clarke, and the music of Gil Scott Heron, Stuff, and Sun Ra.

But you cannot learn what a community feels from these various exchanges. You can’t encapsulate the suffering, aggravation, and sense of futility with authority by discussing books, listening to records, and sipping coffee over politics. It was not clear from even studying the Watts riots or other examples how serious the tensions could get until a verdict came down that simply told a wide range of people, it may be the 90s, but you aren’t any better off than you have been. You haven’t succeeded at defeating the power structure that is bent on holding you in an appointed place not of your choosing.

This was to be different. Years later I was with family as the television started its nightly news ramble. But we didn’t expect to see this beating. This was a thing of the 50s, said one person in the room. I think he meant 60s but whatever he meant, it didn’t feel like we were in the 90s. Twenty plus years ago we thought we were above all of this. Twenty years ago we thought we had a perfect moment to reflect upon race relations but did we learn anything? Did we take those lessons and create something out of them?

I think the answer is a combination of yes and no. In many ways, police forces have engaged in changes that are meant to bring a better relationship with the community. In others, those same efforts are done more for “more cooperation” from the community instead of a better relationship. In some cases, we have less tension regarding race because the demographics are changing. But in many important areas like economics, profiling, and education, we aren’t see much progress from 20 years of lessons.

We have the death of Kelly Thomas at the hands of the Slidebar’s ignorance and the out of control rage of police officers from Fullerton PD showing us nothing changed here. We have the death of Trayvon Martin to remind us that profiling never stops in America. But we have to remember to keep the whole picture in view. If we are to make progress, we should applaud it and set it aside for distinction from the abuses.

We are humans. We aren’t perfect. But if we take a look at the simple act of Rodney King at the point in the riots when he veered of script and said, “can’t we all just get along?” perhaps we can drop the bullshit like he did and just ask for some kindness and civility. He was supposed to read the comments prepared for him but obviously felt they weren’t his words and just spoke from his spirit.

Thank you Rodney for taking a beating for us all. Thank you for showing that even as people raged at the treatment you and they had been receiving, you showed a care for the whole that spoke up so clearly.

Can’t we all just get along? I don’t know. But we can try. It wouldn’t hurt.

And to Rodney and his family. You didn’t suffer in vain. In some areas of the world, we saw you as a gentle person who just had some problems; much like the rest of the world. Rest, good sir.

Vicious hatred of workers spreads across the land

Today a friend sends a labor mail out of Houston with a link to a story about a woman who lost her job after participating in a strike for a boost in wages up to $10. The story is compelling enough but what stunned my friend the most were the mean comments by people who obviously hate common people, see themselves as superior in deed and rank, and of course have to drop in their obligatory racism regarding “illegals”.

The story revolves around janitor workers in Houston. Texas is a very anti-union state with the ironic title of “right to work” state. There is no “right to work” in Texas under “right to work”. You have a right to shut the fuck up according to Texas law. Don’t like how your employer is treating you? Tough Shit says Texas as it also tries to claim to be a ‘pro-jobs’ state.

(note: Great article from Truthout on Right to Work going to the country)
Continue reading

What is a hero? Was Chris Hayes wrong to apologize?

Just over a week ago MSNBC talk show host Chris Hayes said something about heroes that drew quick and fiery responses from people who felt they had something of value in his comment.

The comment related to Memorial Day:

” Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’? I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect the memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”

It is pathetic that he that he’s actually engaged in a proper question in the proper moment and others in their shallow patriotic fervor missed the meaning.
Continue reading

Speaking Truth to Truthers

“9-11 was an inside job” says my friend.
“what’s your proof?” I respond.
“come on, you can’t believe the official story, man! They’re lying.” he snorts.
“I don’t believe any story yet, I asked for proof.”

This conversation represents not just one encounter but nearly a hundred encounters in person and via the net. We have a lot of videos related to George Bush and 9/11 on our pages for historical usage. In all the work I’ve done with this small crew to seek the indictment and imprisonment of the former administration, it never ceases to amaze me the level of intensity this “inside job” view has taken.
Continue reading

The Pathetic anti-human rants of the Reich Wing Americans

I grew up in what is most properly called “middle America”. Moving around in the areas between Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri, the regular old America was something I thought I knew. It was filled with a fondness for ‘country living’ and the sounds that ranged from Sinatra to Conway Twitty from Donovan to the Eagles. I didn’t hear radio that was rooted in partisanship. The only division on the radio was between the religious stations, the stale news stations that were great for fishing reports, and the different genres of music. But there was not a strong partisan environment anywhere near me. The only political opinions my parents had related to Scottish and English issues. Occasionally, there would be a peak politic moment in the nation but there wasn’t Limbaugh type character who could turn it into a big pile of puss in no time.
Continue reading