The great Ron Fournier. Karl Rove’s quivering pen pal. Who publicly and proudly transformed the Associated Press from a neutral to a partisan observer (Everybody Likes Fox News!). The man who shoved the Washington bureau into his own McCain pressure-cooker during the ’08 election, blanching the outlet and its reputation.

New Journalism Ron Fournier. No longer with the AP. Now dimming another outlet:

Why Boston Bombings Might Be Scarier Than 9/11
April 16, 2013 | National Journal

Call it “terrorism” if a label helps you make sense of this madness. Find who did it and squash him—or them—with what President Obama called “the full weight of justice.” But in the broad scheme of things, such loose ends matter less than this: Life in America changed with the Boston Marathon bombings—again, and as with past attacks, for the much worse.

What a breezy paragraph. Call it “terrorism”? It is terrorism, so I’ll call it that. If it makes “sense”? The truth makes sense, to me. “Squash him”? He will not be a bug but a killer on the run — who writes like this? And about the “loose ends”: solving the crime, capturing the terrorists, and dispensing American justice, which all prevent future terrorism. Whatever. Good Morning Mr. Featherweight. Tell the Kardashians I love whatever show it is that they do, on the television.

Just when we need it least, we have apparently come across the equivalent of an Op/Ed reality episode. Where a performer features his insubstantial self for the purpose of entertaining you. You weren’t in the mood, I know, but you’re not the only American with wants and wishes. Ron’s got a thing, too. What was that again? “Life in America changed with the Boston Marathon bombings—again, and as with past attacks, for the much worse.”

Oh bullshit you twerp. You think we can’t see what you’re trying to pull? Anyone can play doomsayer after the brutality: WE’LL NEVER BE THE SAME. You could say the same after going to the dentist. Cut it with the Nostradamus masquerade, it’s cheap.

There’s a bottom line: Three people are dead, not 3,000. And Ron Fournier is a coward. Which places him in stark contrast with, oh, everyone else in the country right about now, terrorists excluded.

The former New York mayor has gone and died.

“Of course, the vast majority of Muslims — there are a billion four hundred million — are not terrorists. But there are hundreds of millions who are. They want to kill every Christian, every Jew, every Hindu who won’t convert.”

Good riddance.

Roger Simon:

For over forty years now, the Watergate scandal — the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration — has been the sine qua non of American political malfeasance. It has been followed by myriad other “gates” affecting both parties but has never been superseded.

Until now. Benghazi or Benghazigate, as some call it, is worse. Far worse. Incomparably worse.

This idea is being passed around like a virus between the snotty kindergartners on the right. Mike Huckabee, Marsha Blackburn and Sean Hannity are all suggesting President Obama be impeached.

I’m having a hard time getting it. The argument escapes me. President Reagan can fail to protect 241 military personnel in Beirut, and shit happens. Got it. President Bush can fail to protect 3000 civilians on American soil, and that’s a tragedy. Check. But when President Obama fails to protect 4 people in Benghazi, he must be removed from office.

The high crimes and misdemeanors come from where?

. . the terrorist murder (not an electorally irrelevant burglary) of government officials, their reckless endangerment, the undermining of the Bill of Rights and free speech by our own administration in response to Islamist threats, and, ultimately, the complicity of that same administration, consciously or unconsciously, in the downfall of Western civilization.

I see no reason to graffiti a question mark over the facts. The President is conspiring with the Eastern hemisphere to take the Western one down. After that, you should know the end begins in Benghazi. With any luck.

NC State Sen. David Rouzer on the congressional campaign trail. He makes a poor case for the Romney/Ryan ticket:

“When we get them in, you know what’s gonna happen? You are going to see a big change. You’re going to see number one that America is going to be respected again around the world. You’re going to see all this turmoil that’s taking place, you’re going to see them look up and say ‘Guess what? The American people have spoken and maybe we need to cut it out a little bit. Maybe we need to tone it down a little bit because now we have real men in the White House…’ That’s right, no girly men.”

David might want to tweak his message. The people have already figured this one out. Langer Research Associates polled over a thousand Americans, and . .

Obama would beat the crap out of Mittens. Yes, I realize that average Americans are not David’s macho-obsessed terrorists. The Muslims are the ones who ought to be cowering. But I doubt an argument like “We know Mitt’s a pussy but the Arabs don’t” will win people over.

Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six first person shooter is developing its latest iteration. Alyssa Rosenberg at Think Progress mentions that previous releases had you gunning down nuclear terrorists, bio-terrorists, genocide-whetted Hutus and murderous masterminds who planned to wipe out Las Vegas. I remind no one in particular that Siegrfried and Roy reside in the area.

The newest version is on the way. And look who’s about to get shot in the face, for eternity:

It’s, uh, hmm. Who the hell is that? They’re short-haired, clean shaven, heavily armed, well-organized, hopelessly violent, and clad in tailored suits. Blackwater? Is that you?

. . the bad guys are basically Occupy Wall Streeters on steroids. Or, considering all the rioting, attacks against police, and pyrotechnics coming from the occupiers lately, just a better organized next step for the more violent members of the 99%.

The right-winger, tongue outside cheek, then points us to the latest anarchist “pyrotechnics”:

. . the conflagration that vaporized Denver. Breaking capital news: it’s butt-pucker Fahrenheit.

Alyssa:

. . nowhere has the Clancyverse done better at upping the stakes and turning conservative boogeymen into national security threats than in the Rainbow Six franchise . .

Oh, it’s a game? Fair enough. How about Al Gore fanatics carrying liquid nitrogen tanks on their backs? They blast-freeze carbon-wasting citizens and snap them in half. Crack! Or eco-green maniacs dragging fast-food fans off to labor farms. They work the fatties like Burmese slaves for a couple weeks, then roll ‘em onto compost piles to burn. Look, they wiggle like Turtles. Whatever. We’ll supply the men, you program the boogey.

Ed Koch makes some news again. He does this from time to time — rattles the political pots and pans to get some camera crews to come around and wonder if he’s still alive.

Koch: Vote for GOPer a vote for Israel
CARL CAMPANILE | New York Post

In “a shot across President Obama’s bow,” Democratic former Mayor Ed Koch yesterday urged voters in Queens and Brooklyn to make “history” by voting for the Republican candidate to replace randy ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner in the Sept. 13 special election — as a protest against the White House’s policy on Israel.

Can we come up with some pithy name for the “pro-Israel” (what liberal is anti-Israel, incidentally? nobody) folks who run off the reservation? The people who think American politics is fine and quaint, but everybody’s forgetting that Israel is about to be destroyed? ‘Izzers’? ‘Pocalyptos’? ‘Idiots’?

Israel’s not about to be destroyed. No way, no how. With its seemingly permanent economic and technological deficits, the Palestinians are far more likely to vanish than the Israelis. Of course, it’s at this point in the conversation that some ass will try to remind me of their breeding habits. I had a roommate like that.

Ed Koch isn’t so far from that. He charmed the pants off the Fox crowd in 2010 with this bit of cool-headed pro-Israel analysis:

We’re afraid to call them Muslim Islamist, uh, terrorists. We’ll call them anything but because we don’t want to alienate Muslim countries, that’s ridiculous. Of course, the vast majority of Muslims — there are a billion four hundred million — are not terrorists. But there are hundreds of millions who are. They want to kill every Christian, every Jew, every Hindu who won’t convert.

So if the “vast majority” aren’t terrorists, but hundreds of millions are, what do you figure the murdering/peaceful split is? 900 million/500 million? That sounds about right.

Says here that there are 360 million people in the entire Arab World. I suppose the former New York mayor can start there and begin recruiting.

In Independence Day Prayer, Rep. Broun Compares Progressives To Terrorists Who “Want To Destroy Us”
July 05, 2011 — Matt Finkelstein

. . There are those who wish to destroy the U.S., Broun said, citing radical Islam and “progressives.”

“Father, there are many who want to destroy us from outside this nation,” Broun said. “Folks like al-Qaeda and the radical Islamists. But there are folks that want to destroy us from inside, the progressives and the socialists, who want to make this nation a nation that’s no longer under you, under God, but a nation that’s ruled by man.”

Paul Broun’s God rules this country? Why does he want so many abortions? Maybe your God’s a woman, Paul.

Anyway, I was wondering what it would be like if we participated in the same sort of demonizing that Paul and his buddies engage in, but of the Republicans. That might be fun.

I wonder if we could come up with something that would bug them. Knowing how easily they get upset, I bet it could be done.

Mmm, how about this:

That might do it.

Al Qaeda have released their latest message, and it’s a silly one. They’re no longer interested in the heavy lifting that comes with overthrowing the great Satan:

New Al Qaeda Video: American Muslims Should Buy Guns, Start Shooting People
ABC New | June 3 2011

. . [Adam] Gadahn sounds the same theme in his message, a series of soundbites interspersed throughout the video and accompanied by images of U.S. airliners, bombmaking and the logos of U.S. companies. “Muslims in the West have to remember that they are perfectly placed to play an important and decisive part in the Jihad against the Zionists and crusaders, and to do major damage to the enemies of Islam, waging war on their religion, sacred places, and things, and brethren,” says Gadahn. “This is a golden opportunity and a blessing.”

You Americans. Please shoot yourself.

“I mean we’ve seen how a woman knocked the Pope to the floor during Christmas mass, and how Italian leader Berlusconi’s face was smashed during a public appearance. So it’s just a matter of entrusting the matter to Allah and choosing the right place, the right time, and the right method.”

It’s sooooo easy. Step One: Knock on your neighborhood’s door.

Step Two: Listen for footsteps.

Step Three: Begin shooting.

“If it’s Allah’s will that you be captured, then it’s not the end the world, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to spend the rest of your life in prison.” Many mujahideen who were locked up “are now back home with their families, or back on the frontlines, fighting the enemies.”

After killing everyone in sight, they’ll put you in jail. Couple days later, after a good chuckle, they’ll let you out. You go back to the wife and kids, no one cares.

I think it’s worthwhile to consider the arguments against killing Osama bin Laden in a raid. It is not a trivial thing for a government to target a person, send a highly trained military team to a faraway place, and then assault them. It’s a shocking and dramatic thing.

But once you’re face-to-face with that person, what’s the right thing to do? Michael Moore opposes killing bin Laden:

“We’ve lost something of our soul here in this country. And maybe I’m an old school American who believes in our American judicial system, something that separates us from other parts, other countries, where we say everybody has their day in court no matter how bad of a person, no matter what piece of scum they are, they have a right to a trial. And this man was a mass murderer, he was responsible for the deaths, at least in this country, of nearly 3,000 people. And, you know, after World War II, we just didn’t go in and put a bullet to the head of all the top Nazis. We put them on trial. We took them to Nuremberg and we put them on trial, and we said ‘no, this important for the world to see . . ‘”

Michael is a good man, and he makes good points. But I differ with him. Perhaps if we were living in a more perfect world, we could have taken, rather than killed, bin Laden. I suppose that’s possible. But this ignores two realities: it’s far more dangerous to capture someone, and the terrorist mastermind was still at war with the United States.

I just don’t think it’s wise to demand your SEALs capture the guy. You’re sending them into a foreign country whose defense forces could, by reasonably assuming the Americans were carrying out an international assault, kill every one of the team, legally and without hesitation. The bin Laden security cadre would certainly kill them all, it’s their job. Bin Laden himself would happily kill them all, if he could, and then boast of it on video. The difficulties and dangers facing the operation team were so great, I find it difficult to fathom. So, I think it’s imprudent and unwise to make the ‘capture’ demand. It displays a recklessness I’d hope a sensible president would avoid.

More importantly, we’re at war with bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This is where Moore’s argument falls most flat — nations at war don’t have the luxury of trying every soldier their military comes across. Instead, they kill the enemy in order to defend their citizens and to end the imminent threat. This is the essential truth about bin Laden: he was a soldier who killed Americans in the past, and he planned to kill Americans in the future. As the commander of an effective military and terrorist organization, he’s an especially dangerous warrior. It’s absolutely fine, if not a moral imperative, to shoot the guy in the head.

Yes, certainly, we didn’t kill Nazis after the war, but then the threat was over. Only days earlier, we were killing them as fast as we could find them. Being at war with Al Qaeda’s terrorists makes the difference.

Now for an argument less thoughtful — John Yoo’s, from the Wall Street Journal:

” . . bin Laden was still issuing instructions and funds to a broad terrorist network and would have known where and how to find other key al Qaeda players. His capture, like Saddam Hussein’s in December 2003, would have provided invaluable intelligence and been an even greater example of U.S. military prowess than his death.

White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday that the SEAL team had orders to take bin Laden alive, ‘if he didn’t present any threat,’ though he correctly dismissed this possibility as ‘remote.’ This is hard to take seriously. No one could have expected bin Laden to surrender without a fight.”

So they should have, err . . come again? What? Yoo seems to be making the argument that the SEALs should have done anything (everything) to capture bin Laden. Sure, of course, he would have fought back — so what? He asks the team members to sacrifice their lives. But for what, exactly?

After maybe getting a couple Navy guys killed, John Yoo gets to jam some battery cables into bin Laden’s mouth? Yep. Yoo will say anything to steer the conversation toward an embrace of his beloved torture.

. . if they were going in with no options other than to kill him, then I do think that’s a problem . . it does seem from the initial reports that a deliberately small force was sent in and there wasn’t a lot of thought given to the idea of capturing him.

If they’re only going to kill bin Laden, what a problem. They should have thought about capturing him — but, oh, that paltry force. Yes, well, look at how badly everything went, it’s a shame.

John Yoo seems to think there’s no sacrifice great enough, no obstacle too big, to prevent our military from stuffing a guy in a bag and dragging him back to American soil. The mysteries wither.

Isn’t disappointment guaranteed you when you choose to be a Conservative? Doesn’t it hurt, the way so few people behave? Think of the problems that would vanish if we could all be the same.

State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron
BBC News | 5 February 2011

David Cameron has criticised “state multiculturalism” in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism . .

The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK . .

“Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” the prime minister said.

Your liberalism, yes, as in ‘squeeze the outsiders.’ So Britons are to do what, exactly? Or Americans, who have been bludgeoned by right-wingers with “naive multi-culturalist,” they need to change, how? I’m curious to know what you’d have me do from now on.

When I see someone wearing a headscarf, should I criticize them? Should I tell them that a normal person doesn’t dress like that?

When I smell someone cooking strange, odoriferous food, should I knock on their door? Should I remind them of the mainstream pleasures of hamburgers and hot dogs?

When I see somebody observing strange customs, like praying to an unfamiliar God, should I point out that most of us doubt He exists? Should I add that some think His religion evil? Or, at least, hilarious?

I am nauseated at the sound of “multi-culturalism has failed.” In what way should I change my tolerant habits? I can’t tell you how I would love to know. Because the only alternatives to acceptance and mutual respect, as far as I can tell, are outdated regionalism and racism.

When someone criticizes institutions or traditions, like our flag, our holidays, our celebrities, I oughta take them to task? I might lecture them on the meanings of such things? Perhaps I’ll make it personal and tell them what it all means to me. That should be effective, right, because I am such a typical, wonderful, national-type person. Gosh, lucky me.

And, please, do let me know how to go about tightening up Cameron’s “collective identity.” What is it, by the way? Is it somewhere where I can see it? Or must I read about it in a book? Such things were once the fancies of historians, gazing long hours into their way-back machines.

This attack on multi-culturalism is ugly politics, period. They offer no alternative because there is no civilized alternative. Only an anachronistic fool would want to beef up the cultural, if not criminal, codes on behavior, attitude and appearance. The absences of such things are the trademarks of open, Western societies. You can’t tighten freedom.

Remember these guys?

They look pretty normal to me. To you, maybe not. So what are we really talking about?

Ooh, those pretty, pretty eyebrows. He’s like some sort of heavenly cross between Richard Grieco and John Bolton. He’s all dream-y, and invade-y, and then, once you give it up to him in the back seat of your tangerine Scion xB, he kills your whole famile-y. My, how Jason is knocking the pantyhose off all “the ladies” over at Human Events, aka “their 99% male subscribers.”

Gee, Jenny, why I’d do anything to get near spike hair, skull-and-bones. What? A video? Where? At humanevents.com: “Leading Conservative Media Since 1944″? Well hurry, CLICK IT!!

HE LIKES HOSNI MUBARAK? *SQUEAL!*

Did you see him LOOK at me? HE LOOKED AT ME! RUN!

January 21, 2011
A few thoughts on hate…and tyranny, Part I, Part II
By Sam Weaver | Renew America

I often make bold, vague or controversial statements with little or no explanation in this column for the sole purpose of drawing response/input/discussion from readers. This device has been effective . .

Agreed! Discuss . .

Generally, liberals are collectivists, so they make stupid assumptions:

Collectivists cannot see individuals; they only see groups.

Iran, backed by Russia and China, and through her surrogates such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah and Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela is the world’s greatest and most prolific supporter, wielder, executor and harbor of/to terrorism.

. . HEY-O! I do this on purpose!

Just like the evil act of Jerod Loughton in a Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Arizona on that fateful and horrific Saturday mornin, those evil deeds against Muslims were committed by madmen — sociopaths. They were not made by conservatives or anyone who reveres the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Collectivists do not — cannot, will not! — recognize the power — for better or for worse — of the individual. Jerod Loughton’s despicable, horrendous act must have been inspired and pushed to the breaking point by the “evil” rhetoric of some “evil” collective.

Dear Sir (or Madam),

I must apologize. I am guilty of setting a trap for you. I must with regret respectfully inform you that you have fallen into my trap. You have revealed to me that you are a collectivist.