Redstate

I would question Secretary Chertoff's choice to advance the Threat Level to Orange without credible evidence, as he specifically stated in his press conference.  The potential of copy-cats of classic maneuvers such as mass transit bombings are nothing new.  The Yellow Stage should be qualified to handle what is always possible during that period.  Therefore, if as Chertoff says there is no credible evidence, the threat level need not be raised.

Raising it takes eyes away from the tragedy, eyes away from Londoners dead.  It takes them away from the sympathy and care that we as Americans should show others who fight by our sides, and causes fear in a powerless populace, based upon no credible evidence.

And, for those who doubt me, I merely quote Mr. Chertoff as cited within the CNN article on this subject.

If his security is lax, then he should fix it to begin with and not use tragedies in other nations as excuses for it.

No, I don't particularly find the tactics of the man spoken of in this series of quotes to be particularly appropriate.  He makes a great many speculations that are insulting and derisive.  He's not exactly behaving in a particularly civilized manner.

I am making my comment out of a distaste for the use of other tactics to coerce public response, ones that are not so bile-filled, but are equally insidious.

the Fox News segment earlier where they were commenting about how this might have come at a good time for Western resolve/unity, etc.

Frankly, all the political haymakers from all sides should take the rest of the week off and look for shark stories.

the Londoner families deserve as much.

And if tomorrow a series of bombs goes off on DC subway trains I'll bet money that you would be among the first complaining that security was not raised, was not sufficiently vigilant, did not take the lesson of London.

Pure unadulterated nonsense.

Am I the only one who thinks DHS CYA and political punditry are orders of magnitude less offensive than injecting anti-Semetic conspiracies into another terrorist attack?   Go make a diary to pillory Fox or Chertoff and leave Raimondo to wallow in his filth alone.  The last thing anyone should want is someone reading the OP then the initial comments and thinking "well, those are bad too!"

relate to the topic at hand.  I have pilloried the gentlemen in question in both locations.  I have added agreement with the gentleman's pillory of this figure.  I find that there's nothing to add.  The post's attack is solid and has plenty of evidence behind it.  Why add to what is already so good?

I added additional thoughts related to the subject specifically at hand today.  That it is an order of magnitude less is unimportant to me.  It relates, so it is posted.

I'm sorry that my point regarded a lesser evil.  It was still the same general issue.  Why spare the rod to those who deserve it?  Because they did less than another?  No, give each the lashes they deserve.  This man, whose name I will never remember, has a lot of lashes coming, but he's not the only one who should have them coming and I will say so.

It hardly warrants a diary or FP post to point out an appalling commentary from the lunatic fringe.  There are so many, where to begin.  On the other hand, they have little real world influence because they only play to a small number of similar non-thinkers.  And get more play by reference than by their original existence.

MSM commentary (Fox, CNN, NYT) etc. influences simply because of its reach and its "credibility."  Okay, I know the term credibility might be a reach.

I guess what I'm saying is no one needs to be tallying the political balance sheet on this for 2 reasons:  1) let people have a brief respite and 2) no one really knows who the perps are and what motivated them at this point.

So basically, pundits are just stirring the pot.

You're right. I find this kind of talk abhorrent as well. One can even say that is typical of a sizable segment of the anti-war movement.

However, I question the newsworthiness of the post. There are anti-war protesters who are less than sane. We know. I am anti-war and I would venture to say that I know even better than the pro-war movement how off the reservation some of us are. Why is it necessary to point out the extremists on each side every time they throw a tantrum? It only strengthens them and cheapens the quality of the debate. Mr. Cole is a smart man and knows this.

Consequently, I question Mr. Cole's motives in posting something like this. I feel like its purpose, however subtle or sublimated, was to win points with readers by associating the entire anti-war movement with the extremism of a small contingent therein and confirming their all to frequent stereotyping. Furthermore, I find the congeniality of his last line to only strengthen this view of his intentions. He comes to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

I do not mean to troll, and I post this with all due respect to the community here which I consider an important part of my daily digest, but I would note that I make it a point not to associate the right with the Rick Santorum's of the world and I cordially ask to be given that same courtesy.

you know... I might have misread your post.  If it wasn't directed to me, my apologies.

was Raimondo and conspiracy theories about Israel.  Cole includes a quote about political point scoring but then ties that to Raimondo by saying he'd gone "far beyond" that(paraphrased).  So, yes, the topic was something also beyond the lead in.  The DHS threat level change doesn't take anything away from England.  If anything it makes the events much more personal for Americans despite being little more than CYA.

So, it was so good you felt you needed to add nothing but then saw fit to detract by mentioning something wholely unrelated to either Raimondo or the conspiracy theories.  An interesting tact.

is a contributor so he can post whatever he wishes wherever he wishes.  But maybe my perspective is skewed having been an L for so long and I give Raimondo too much credit for influence.  I still don't see how agreeing with the condemnation of Raimondo would lead one to post something not about...Raimondo.  Generally when people wish to mitigate the faults of one they point out the faults of another.  If that wasn't your intention then I apologize.

that the "your ***tard is worse than our's" is pretty pointless but this is about something else entirely.  It's about Jews and afixing blame.  And here you have a prominent libertarian peacenik giving credence to one theory already ensconced in Arab paranoia and another that soon will be thanks to idiots like Raimondo.

that I represent the leftward fringe of the GOP on many issues, but I think I speak for pretty much everyone here at Red State that there can never be too much attention, too much energy,or too much time spent beating down vile conspiracy theories such as this one being advanced by Raimondo.

In five years, when the 'Jews knew about London' rolls off of the tongues of jihadists just like the 9/11 Jewish slur and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, you will agree with me.

I assume this was to the parent of my post.

I'm not so much responding to John.  I really enjoy visiting his site.  I guess that I'm just responding out of fatigue at how events and tragedies get invariably politicized.  Even before there is enough time to ascertain what is actually happening.

On topic, I agree that Raimondo cannot be criticized enough.  He is a hatemonger and anyone who supports his way of unthinking is pretty deserving of condemntation as well.

and, frankly, I will ask that you not pretend to know either the future or my brain.

Terrorist attacks occur, and one can't always stop them.  It's a big country, and a determined force will get the occasional pot-shot off.  The irony of a bus getting hit right after London would not be lost on me, but I would not blame the country for not raising the threat level.

I would ask if they had reason to know of the attack.  If not, so be it.  Live and learn.  If yes, they flubbed in this case.  Heads roll.  Learn from the mistake.  Move on.

I'm not a huge fan of the color-coded system to begin with.

Your acronymns weren't 100% clear to me.  You were responding to me.  You know, replying to me personally will help avoid this in the future, and will keep my side topic in its own little field, rather than making it dominate 3 sub-fields.  But, that's a structural point of semantics.  Allow me to respond:

As I view the DHS movement to be political point scoring, and consider that (by Chertoff's own admission) it was done without certifiable evidence of threat, I consider my position to be quite related.  It is related to the incident (London) spoken of by both circumstances.  It is related as both were point scoring incidents to my mind.

So, yes, there's a distinction of scale.  However, I have already acknowledged agreement with the OP.  I retain my right to respond by adding 'and in similar vein, this is also unacceptable.'

was not my intention.  He's a pumped up baffoon, and I have no trouble admitting it.  I have no respect for the man.  I simply couldn't add to Cole's rather thorough condemnation of that pathetic little political pundit.

You are quick enough to critcize the increased security awareness with 'no justification.' From that I think it is reasonable to presume that you would be among those just as quick to criticize if nothing was done.

...I'm not a huge fan of the color-coded system to begin with. Yes it is such as stupid idea that even the French use on much like it --- just one less color.

I obviously can't convince you.  I could tell you I'm not a Democrat or Green Party member, but you seem bent on demonizing me and saying 'well, you critized X, so you must agree with Y.'

Look, you think what you want if that helps you sleep at night.  Feel free to assume everyone that makes concerns regarding security protocols and methods is an anti-Bush nut.  With no justification was drawn from Chertoff's own statements.  And, as I recall, it was primarily a point of 'without certified evidence of pending attacks' as he actually stated.  But oh well, I don't suppose the facts of what I say matter nearly so much as your opinion of the type of person who would dare criticize a Bush appointee for not handling National Security with sufficient skill.

I forgot that Conservative meant Bush sycophant.  I'll bear that in mind in future.

And ...the French?  I wouldn't precisely call that backwards-thinking, overly complex little bureaucratic nightmare a vision of proper security measures.  We're long past the days of Napoleon.  Perhaps we could use better models.

"No Justification" --

Don't put words in my mouth.  I said "No Credible Evidence."  I quoted Chertoff.  The word choice was VERY specific.  It was a DIRECT quote drawn from the cnn clip of Chertoff's press release, and was directly related to Chertoff's lack of stated justification for the change to Orange.

His stated reason included the possibility of copycats, a possibility that ALWAYS existed, both prior and after this incident.  He offered reasons that were already present as his justification.

Do not misquote me.  It tends to make me ... less than pleasant.  

If you look at Democratic Underground, or Daily Kos, the comments there justify, for the most part, the terror attacks.

George Galloway issued a statement, on behalf of his Respect Part, that half-heartedly condemned the terror attacks and justified it by Afghanistan and Iraq. Please note, AFGHANISTAN, AND Iraq.

On both DU and Daily Kos you'll see comments also blaming Israel or "the Jews," this certainly fits a pattern. A very disturbing and global one.

It's not just AntiWar.com and the Democratic Underground

The DRUDGE Report is carrying this story which was written by that locus of Anti-Semitic hostility- the ASSOCIATED PRESS.

That's a trifle disturbing.

There are plenty of nutjobs in both places, or the FreeRepublic for that matter.  It should be noted that DU moderators locked several threads linking to Raimondo and the weight of the comments in most diaries like those you cite at dKos including a lot of condemnation of those ideas.  The left is no more one voice than the right...perhaps less so.

I don't think I demonized you. I merely drew what I believe is a reasonable conclusion from your criticism. If  you criticie them for doing something in reaction with no evidence then I think it is reasonable to conclude that you would criticize them if they did not and there was an attack. One man's opinion but I'd put real money on it if such a bet were possible.

No demonization, just an observation.

I shouldn't want you to become less that pleasant --- or at least any moreso than already.

The Drudge report was carrying the AP story on Netenayhu all day. Since I don't think Drudge or AP are anti-Israel I was satirizing the shock and horror expressed by those who thought Antiwar.com was up to some totally unique evil.

Their words and historical fact qualify as evidence.  I apologize that this was miscommunicated.

Your conclusion remains both inaccurate and unwarranted, the work of a potential mind-reader with no offered evidence himself.

Not that it's not laudable to be shining a light on the roaches, John, but is it really that much of a surprise that Raimondo's spinning odious conspiracy theories about the Joooooos before the dead are even cold? I mean, honestly: Raimondo's loathsome anti-semitic drivel was roughly as predictable as Kos calling for restraint and the DU'ers "questioning the timing" of the bombings. You can set your watch by this stuff.

He knows, better than either of us, how imperfect our intel is. If he does nothing and an attack were to happen, would you be so reasonable about his having done nothing?

In war you either do something or you don't. Since people's lives are at stake, and possibly the course of the war itself, I would do exactly what he did: take us to a measured buthigher state of alert.

The carping and second guessing is frankly unbecoming.

had the Associated Press story as well.

Yahoo link

The source noted in the AP story is "a senior Israeli official".

The AP author is Amy Teibel. She writes almost exclusively on Israel/Palastinian issues. usually from Jerusalem. It appears she was writing for the Dow Jones Newswire Israel Bureau Chief (Dow Jones & Co publishes the Wall Street Journal) before the AP.

I said it was my opinion. It is as valid and fully informed as your opinion about Chertoff raising the level for rail transport. Nothing more, nothing less. What more can I say.

I think the fact that you claim raising the threat level, based on the attacks in London (which in my opinion seems like a fairly reasonable thing to do, even w/ no specific threat) is just as insidious as anti-war.com spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories, speaks volumes about where you are coming from ideologically.

You can make the point that we should be always on the lookout for this type of attack, and thus should not need to raise the threat level - which could be a valid point.  However, to compare the two things demonstrates a lack of perspective, which in turn demonstrates a hostility to administration that seems willing to manifest itself no matter what the administration does.

So, to suggest that you would be just as quick to criticize the administration if they failed to raise the threat level and an attack occurred, seems reasonable to me, based upon what you originally wrote.

There can, as I stated earlier, never be enough energy spent debunking this junk.

do like to put words in my mouths.

There is a distinction between 'same type' of problem and 'same degree' of problem.  I have already stated that I view anti-war's diatribe to be worse.  I stated it within my responses to jsteele.

However, you know what?  Don't let facts or what I say get in the way of your opinion about me.  We all want you to sleep well at night, and if misrepresenting your opposition is what it takes, go for it.

I frankly don't think raising threat levels without credible evidence of the need is appropriate.  It blows taxpayer money without evidence, and it needlessly causes fear in the populace.  It's bread and circuses, and sometimes I find these tactics to be abhorrent.  HOWEVER, anti-war.com went way way way too far.  They did worse in my view, than Chertoff's stupidity.

how about make sure yellow level security was sufficient.

Oh wait... I forgot.  That's his job.  He's not supposed to do that.

Uhh,

No, I took nothing out of context and did not put words in your mouth.  Go back and read what you posted [to help you out, your second post on this thread]: "I am making my comment out of a distaste for the use of other tactics to coerce public response, ones that are not so bile-filled, but are equally insidious."

So, antisemitic conspiracy theories and raising the threat level based on the London attack (which, again, seems appropriate to me), according to what you actually wrote, are "equally insidious."

If you want to say you made a mistake in writing that, I can understand that.  But, if you stand by that, then it is you who are twisting and misrepresenting what you actually wrote.

Until then, my previous post is still accurate, based upon the evidence.

Everyone is accusing Raimondo of being some anti-Semitic nut when in fact he was passing along the story written by the AP. Is the AP Jerusalem correspondent an anti-Semite? Or do people here just like painting ideological enemies with the bigot tag?

Just wondering.

There was a homeless guy in Union Square here in NYC today preaching the evils of zionism and you wont believe what else, he said that the Jews knew about 9/11. His evidence was pretty compelling, consisting of messages sent to him by god in his feces.

Let the debunking begin.

naive yet snarky.

You could not answer any question, so I guess tossing in a non-sequitir would make sense.

my apologies.  I had almost forgotten that caveat I put down.  I mispoke.  There is a distinct difference in scale.  One should not be considered insidious.  I don't think Chertoff was lying when he said that there is no credible evidence.  I feel that he demonstrated a limitation in Homeland Security's effectiveness.

Again, apologies.  My statements later on contradicted the assertion that his statements were insidious and I frankly forgot it.  It was probably in part due to the mood the unecessary Orange alert put me in that I made the poor choice of words.