An Afghan policeman guns down two American soldiers there as trainers:
KABUL, Afghanistan — Two American soldiers were shot to death by an Afghan policeman on Monday in northern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said.
The two Americans were involved in training the Afghan Border Police at a checkpoint in the city of Maimana, the capital of Faryab Province, according to Abdul Sattar Bariz, the deputy governor of the province. He said the two were shot and killed by one of the Afghan Border Police officers at the location.
...The attack took place while Col. Najmuddin, the deputy commander of the Afghan Border Police there, was in a meeting with two American trainers, the colonel said. A border policeman outside shot and killed two of the American soldiers providing security for the meeting, and then fled, leaving his weapon behind, Colonel Najmuddin said. Like many Afghans, he uses only one name.
We do not seem to be winning hearts and minds quickly enough.
M K Bhadrakumar has more on that story: Pastor Jones and a dreaded ghost. Bhadrakumar goes into some of the history of Mazar.
Philip Jenkins offers looooong term reasons for hope--fewer Muslims: The Muslim World's Coming European Revolution.
Posted by: anduril | April 04, 2011 at 10:57 AM
We need to get out.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 04, 2011 at 10:57 AM
We do not seem to be winning hearts and minds quickly enough.
Hard to win what does not exist.
(Or, alternatively, there must be thousands of "hearts and minds" laying beside the roads in Afghanistan, as so many of its people have abandoned theirs.)
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 04, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Steve Sailer takes a closer look at The Cash Value of American Citizenship. By consulting "a Chinese birth tourism website—the extremely pink Chinese Baby Care"--he discovers the 8 Reasons (Chinese luv numbered lists) why Chinese women like to give birth in the US--and, no, US pre-natal care is not one of the reasons. Plus, there are many other interesting nuggets of information, such as this one:
Wow! Use that to stump everyone at the next party.
Just let's not let Afghans get into this birth tourism thing.
Posted by: anduril | April 04, 2011 at 11:06 AM
I can't imagine how anyone with a functioning brain, would ever want to release Khairwa, then again, that I might be assuming too much.
Posted by: narciso | April 04, 2011 at 11:09 AM
Butler wins tonight.
Notre Dame wins tomorrow night.
The Men's and Women's champions will both be from Indiana.
Cosmic Karma will be returned to balance and the world can begin to heal itself.
Posted by: not_bubarooni | April 04, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Drudge has a link to this article: Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012. It's amusingly written, such as this passage:
It also rehearses signs of Obama's extreme weaknes in recent polls.
Posted by: anduril | April 04, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Perhaps the Afghan policeman was provoked into shooting our soldiers by something someone did in Idaho?...maybe some infidel in Nebraska touched a Koran or something?
Meanwhile...the Mormon bashing play is still wonderful!...and hopefully that cross out in the desert is still covered with plywood & the historic cross in the Wren Chapel is still off in some side room so we don't have to see it.
Posted by: Janet | April 04, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Ramping up there is just another bit of O Genius, isn't it?
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Well, we know what to do first, if we really want their hearts and minds to follow. Unfortunately, the One leading the country seems not to have those very things we need to grab.
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Tom McClintock starts at 01:00. He lays down the gauntlet regarding Libya and the legality of this war.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 04, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Here in WI we're getting lots of Supreme Court ads on TV (from both sides). I've gotten two robocalls this morning already.
I'm glad the Prosser side is calling out Kloppenberg's lies about the abuse victim - they have an ad out in which he appears and says he asked her to pull the ad and she wouldn't.
The Kloppenberg yard signs I see around here say "Elections Matter!" Yes, they do. When she loses, I will be interested to see how much respect her side accords the election.
Posted by: PD | April 04, 2011 at 12:03 PM
KSM to be tried before a military commission in Gitmo. Only took them two years to make a decision.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2011 at 12:05 PM
So, on the same day that Obama announces his re-election campaign... his administration announces that after 2 1/2 years of delay, they will proceed with a military commission against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Of course, such a military tribunal.
The Soviets used to say that Socialism was the long road from Capitalism to Communism. Back during Soviet withdrawl from Eastern Europe, there was a local joke that Socialism was, in fact, the long road from Capitalism to Capitalism.
Posted by: Ranger | April 04, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Carp... should read: Of course, such a military tribunal had already been schedualed before Obama took office, but was cancelled because of the "fearce moral urgancy of change", wich resulted in the 2 year delay.
Posted by: Ranger | April 04, 2011 at 12:10 PM
Wonder if he'll renew his guilty plea now. One way or another, I hope this administration has the balls to execute this murdering bastard.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2011 at 12:16 PM
Balls, we don't need no stinkin' balls.
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 12:18 PM
I hope the last man out will put a bullet in Karzai's brain before turning out the lights.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Balls, we don't need no stinkin' balls.
Good thing, 'cause there aren't any in this administration.
Posted by: PD | April 04, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Didn't Obama run an election campaign on the notion that this was the "good" war? Great judgment.
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 12:27 PM
Balls, we don't need no stinkin' balls. Good thing, 'cause there aren't any in this administration.
Ummm...did you forget HILLARY?
Posted by: Sue | April 04, 2011 at 12:33 PM
Rush said he talked to Paul Ryan this morning who tomorrow will announce a 10-year budget blueprint.
Posted by: PD | April 04, 2011 at 12:34 PM
Ummm...did you forget HILLARY?
She might have had some at one time, but she seems to have been effectively neutered.
Posted by: PD | April 04, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Jane: We need to get out.
Not so fast, Jane. First let's get a president who understands what civilization is worth and what it is made of.
Then let that president speak out about what is worth standing up for.
Then we go to the UN and start speaking truth and power. No more support for bullshit.
Then we set down the next president’s doctrine, which should stat that no one, anywhere, can be sure we won't intervene wherever people are oppressed and wherever thuggery is protected.
Then we go to the press and ask -- not tell -- why you report the individual casualties, which are regrettable, without reporting what in that theater makes being there worthwhile.
--
Sorry. I get tired of political/media dimness.
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 12:36 PM
--Not so fast, Jane. First let's get a president who understands what civilization is worth and what it is made of.
Then let that president speak out about what is worth standing up for.
Then we go to the UN and start speaking truth and power. No more support for bullshit.
Then we set down the next president’s doctrine, which should stat that no one, anywhere, can be sure we won't intervene wherever people are oppressed and wherever thuggery is protected.
Then we go to the press and ask -- not tell -- why you report the individual casualties, which are regrettable, without reporting what in that theater makes being there worthwhile.--
Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of our men die and billions more are wasted on an ungovernable hellhole.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 04, 2011 at 01:00 PM
If Afghanistan doesn't have something we want or need, let's get the he!! out of there. We can send over a UAV every now and then, to check and see whether the country has made it into the 9th century yet.
Posted by: Mike Giles | April 04, 2011 at 01:01 PM
Ignatz: Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of our men die and billions more are wasted on an ungovernable hellhole.
I see. All thugs have to do is make a country seem "ungovernable" and they will have increased their sphere of influence. And when a goodly portion of civilization has eroded, when will what has happened become significant to us. What price should thugs pay, how, and when?
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 01:11 PM
Then we set down the next president’s doctrine, which should stat that no one, anywhere, can be sure we won't intervene wherever people are oppressed and wherever thuggery is protected.
That's a mighty undertaking since oppression and thuggery cover all of Africa, tip to tip and side to side, most of the Middle East, much of Asia, a good part of South and Central America and other delightful spots too numerous to mention such as Haiti, Cuba and so on.
Or was that meant as irony and I'm too thick-headed to get it?
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | April 04, 2011 at 01:14 PM
(A)B, I am extremely serious.
Any individual can deduce the minimum requirements for interacting with others civilly, but the nudging to do so does not happen in schools. Why not?
The corollary is that anyone can deduce what kind of behavior is NOT civil, and make it clear to others that such behavior will be discouraged, not encouraged.
So the next time someone kills a neighbor because a Koran gets burned, we should not give in to it. The next time a Qaddafi quashes verbal protest, we should not give in to it. The next time the UN "Human Rights Council" breaks wind and calls it a report, we should give it the respect it deserves.
Civility demands knowing what is civil and what is not. And if you cannot make the process of decision-making accessible to others, then we have to learn better how to do that.
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 01:27 PM
I don't know. I'm trying to figure out how this president thinks.
This weekend, I saw a report about the DOJ filing on behalf of a teacher who wanted 3 weeks off to go the Hajj during the school year (we've discussed this).
The CNN pundit (maybe Gloria Borger?) said the president is very concerned about what it sees as a growing backlash against Muslims in this country.
Now frankly, I don't see it and I don't think the numbers support it. I think Obama makes sure we hear about every big case. The way they've handled the Terry Jones situation is odd.
Why is this so concerning to the president? Do you think he is just using it (Muslim backlash) as a backdoor way to gain more control over speech?
Posted by: MayBee | April 04, 2011 at 01:31 PM
I went to our new Ocean State job lots over lunch and I was accosted by a woman who asked if I was a tea partier. She attended the rally and recognized me I guess.
SHe went on and on how she was so fed up with the republicans and SCott Brown and how the democrats were liars. I mean on and on and on and on.
I kept thinking: Is this what I sound like?
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 04, 2011 at 01:35 PM
SBW,
I'm not sure we can win. Let's bring our troops home and then nuke the place.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 04, 2011 at 01:37 PM
Maybee, if my religion requires me not to work during the school week, then I probably should get a job where I can teach at other times.
Once I have taken a job where I have to teach during the week, I can't later claim that my employer should meet the new condition.
Religion is for composing one’s own mind, not for bludgeoning others into submission.
At least in the real world. Too be sure, Lindsey Graham and Harry Reid may think different.
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 01:39 PM
Obama is running again ?
Will anybody notice ? I mean, when hasn't he been campaigning ?
Posted by: Neo | April 04, 2011 at 01:44 PM
--I see. All thugs have to do is make a country seem "ungovernable"--
One size does not fit all countries. Some countries may only seem ungovernable but Afghanistan has proven through thousands of years and hundreds of shipwrecked invaders that it is ungovernable. It can and was fairly easily defeated, but there is no nation to be built there.
--And when a goodly portion of civilization has eroded..--
There's no civilization to speak of in Afghanistan, or Libya, or even Egypt. There's a great deal of history and loads of culture but vanishingly little of any of it is civilized.
Our military, like all militaries, is not made to impose civilization and they have made it clear they are either uninterested or incapable of adopting ours on their own.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 04, 2011 at 01:48 PM
I kept thinking: Is this what I sound like?
Hahahaha! I KNOW I do on certain days.
Posted by: Janet | April 04, 2011 at 01:48 PM
Maybee, if my religion requires me not to work during the school week, then I probably should get a job where I can teach at other times.
Oh, I agree. What I can't get my head around is why Obama thinks there is a growing backlash against Muslims and why he thinks this is something he, as president, must get under control.
I think Obama wants to use the imagined backlash to bludgeon us into submission (as you so ably put it).
Ditto "bullying".
I don't know if I'm a tinfoil hatter or if there is some end result he's going for.
Posted by: MayBee | April 04, 2011 at 01:49 PM
MayBee,
I think it's essentially an equivalence argument. It's the same phenomenon that we saw after 9/11, when the supposed violent backlash against Muslims (that never materialized) was made to seem as if it approaches or equals the hatred the Muslim world has for us. And you know, abortion clinic bombers are like exactly the same as the 9/11 hijackers, etc.
Of course this particular President with his special Muslim-like (but not Muslim!) qualities is able to impart a certain new zing to the concept, but it's the same impulse.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 04, 2011 at 01:49 PM
If we really want to win the hearts, minds and trigger fingers (attribution to Mark Steyn) then why don't we either send Charlie Sheen (winning with tiger blood) or Organizing for America (Winning the Future) over there? I am sure they can probably come up with all the apologia needed when Terry Jones again cracks the Andy Warhol code to 15 minutes of fame and lets our crackerjack press corps make him more infamous than famous.
But to put the Marines and Army in harm's way in order to demonstrate what a "good" war looks like reminds me of Wisconsin and what "democracy" looks like - the carnival's hall of mirrors.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 04, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Our military, like all militaries, is not made to impose civilization and they have made it clear they are either uninterested or incapable of adopting ours on their own.
What concerns me is the push to have us adopt their societal rules in order to protect our troops (or others in the country).
I don't think we can be perfect enough if that responsibility is going to be put on our citizens. And societies that ask each citizen to be perfect in the eyes of the government "for our own good" are not free.
Posted by: MayBee | April 04, 2011 at 01:55 PM
Jane: Let's bring our troops home and then nuke the place.
Tee, hee! April Fool's Day was Friday.
The questions I just asked are legitimate and timely. I doubt the community could show me where such important concerns are addressed in schools where we prep people to make the decisions in real life.
Reminder: "Any individual can deduce the minimum requirements for interacting with others civilly, but the nudging to do so does not happen in schools. Why not?"
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 01:56 PM
JiB: "But to put the Marines and Army in harm's way in order to demonstrate what a "good" war looks like"
The strategy and rules of engagement in Afghanistan are in the hands of someone incapable of intelligently setting them. I agree. But I am proud of this country's ability to absorb 4 years of Chauncey Gardner without collapsing. Our job is to do the best we can until we get a real president, like I said above.
What we did in Iraq was give 28 million people, at reasonable cost in lives and treasure, an opportunity to determine their future out from under the thumb of a tyrant.
I am not saying we should do that in Afghanistan or Libya, but to turn tail because of two suicide bombers, three mullahs, and the NY Times is foolish.
Better we should ask good questions and lay out good answers. That's where courage comes from.
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Will anybody notice ? I mean, when hasn't he been campaigning ?
Posted by: Neo | April 04, 2011 at 01:44 PM
Well, considering the number of times he tries to shoehorn "Hope" and "Change" into every speech he gives, regardless of the topic, I doubt it.
Posted by: Ranger | April 04, 2011 at 02:03 PM
I'm trying to figure out how this president thinks.
You realize there's a presumption embedded in that effort, and that it's possibly false, right?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 04, 2011 at 02:03 PM
I don't want to turn tail because of suicide bombers or anything else. Given the rules of engagement I don't think we can win. And I'm sure we can't win with this CIC. And I'm not sure what "winning" means, but I'm certain that my idea of winning is different from Obama's.
I think there was a reason Bush kept Afghanistan on hold.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | April 04, 2011 at 02:06 PM
Jane, we are pretty close in our analysis of the situation. I approach it from this direction: Why is it that so many good citizens cannot deduce for themselves how to act when one person (or culture) meets another?
That is an epic fail because it means Obama has no public common sense to constrain his decision-making.
So, as much a failure as Obama might be, it is the public that enables him.
Where do we start?
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 02:12 PM
Hitchens on the post-Koran-burning rampage:
The man is simply eloquent. Here's the whole thing.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2011 at 02:24 PM
KSM to be tried before a military commission in Gitmo. Only took them two years to make a decision.
Looks like an announcement timed to upstage this hearing:
Which on the one hand is hopeful: they don't want to fight a ridiculous battle. On the other, I expect we'll see them drag their feet as much as possible to avoid doing the obvious.Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 04, 2011 at 02:26 PM
"Perhaps the Afghan policeman was provoked into shooting our soldiers by something someone did in Idaho?"
Ahem, that was me this past weekend. I inadvertently tossed a used tissue and it landed on my volume set of The World's Religions on my bookcase. A tiny corner alit on the book on Islam. My, how fast words travel these days...
Posted by: lyle | April 04, 2011 at 02:29 PM
So, is anyone familiar with the learned First Amendment jurisprudence of one L. Graham? Is it his view, for example, that if Christians started headchopping upon becoming aware of a "work of art" (a term I use advisedly in this context) consisting of a crucifix submerged in urine, Senator Graham would support legislation banning such a deed?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 04, 2011 at 02:31 PM
I don't know if any of you heard Holder's statement at 2:00. His entire petulant performance was through gritted teeth. He directed his bile directly at Congress for having the temerity to question his judgment in seeking to prosecute KSM in federal court in the SDNY.
I can't remember such a visibly angry performance by a cabinet member.
He is not a happy camper.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 04, 2011 at 02:33 PM
I can't remember such a visibly angry performance by a cabinet member.
Dude's in over his head deeper than his boss. Petulant prick.
Posted by: lyle | April 04, 2011 at 02:38 PM
to turn tail because of two suicide bombers, three mullahs, and the NY Times is foolish
Just as well we're all aware that our problems in Afghanistan are quite a bit more extensive than that, then.
Posted by: bgates | April 04, 2011 at 02:38 PM
bgates: Just as well we're all aware that our problems in Afghanistan are quite a bit more extensive than that, then.
bgates, the only salve on the wound is your humor that describes it.
Posted by: sbw | April 04, 2011 at 02:46 PM
I can't remember such a visibly angry performance by a cabinet member.
You make it sound like he got a call from Obama this morning. This has been brewing for 2 years and this unprofessional asshole the temerity to act unhappy. What a douchebag.
Posted by: Neo | April 04, 2011 at 02:48 PM
Megyn had two guests immediately following Holder's performance, one the father of a victim and the other a fireman who had helped in the rescue effort. Both were particularly articulate and made it pretty clear that they hold Holder and the Administration in contempt for their decision to try KSM in US Court.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 04, 2011 at 02:49 PM
Tribal Muslim cultures are not ready for the 21st Century or democracy as we know it.
But IMHO, if we don't have the will or the patience to invest some of our human and material capital in trying to change their culture, then we really only have 2 other options:
1) Withdraw into an isolationalist posture within Fortress America. This approach means we can pretty much only respond AFTER we've been attacked, and won't allow for any critical human intelligence gathering capabilities.
But isn't that what led to 9/11?
2) By withdrawing into Fortress America, we basically cede the battlefield in this conflict to the radicals, and make a nuclear exchange more likely.
The jihadists will ultimately prevail over the moderates in their home countries, and the unassimilated Muslims in Europe will become more radicalized and will eventually become the majority in Europe, dominating European politics.
Will Europe be a "traditional ally" then? Who else will control the British and French nukes then?
Cloistered in our false security within Fortress America, we will have few options left when we suffer the next large scale al Qaeda, jihadist, or Iranian-sponsored terrorist attack.
After having tried and failed at changing Islamic culture, we'll pretty much be left with no other options than using our own nukes or accepting dhimmitude.
Besides, how safe will Fortress America really be if we continue to ignore the growing issue of radical Muslims from within?
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 04, 2011 at 02:49 PM
Steadman Shabazz's incompetence isn't restrained to just one administration.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 04, 2011 at 02:54 PM
I selfishly pray that Hitchens survives his cancer just so I can keep reading his magnificent prose --whether or not I agree with it.
"I can't remember such a visibly angry performance by a cabinet member.
He is not a happy camper"
Neither am I at the performance of the DoJ under his command.Maybe when he leves, he can go into practice with Ramsey Clark.
Lindsey Graham has now proven that he is a first class dunce. when will his people replace him with someone with a brain?
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2011 at 02:57 PM
See LUN (via Instapundit) for Mark Steyn's views on Esteemed Master of First Amendment Jurisprudence Lindsay Graham.
I just had an unsettling vision. A Huckabee-Graham GOP ticket in 2012. I don't think it will happen, but just the thought is bad enough.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 04, 2011 at 02:58 PM
Obama is like a spoiled kid who always claims he'll do things different from his parents when he gets older, only to discover when he matures that adults and parents do what they do for very good reasons.
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 04, 2011 at 02:59 PM
Lindsey Graham makes my skin crawl almost as much as Obama does.
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 04, 2011 at 03:01 PM
"Maybe when he leves, he can go into practice with Ramsey Clark"
Good gawd, I can't believe I almost forgot about Ramsey Clark, the seditious bastard.
Posted by: lyle | April 04, 2011 at 03:07 PM
Ann Coulter - Sep 13, 2001 "... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Posted by: Janet | April 04, 2011 at 03:10 PM
Lindsey Graham has now proven that he is a first class dunce. when will his people replace him with someone with a brain?
But this term he'll FINALLY make it to the Emerald City! The Wizard will TOTALLY give him a brain THIS TIME!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 04, 2011 at 03:10 PM
--But IMHO, if we don't have the will or the patience to invest some of our human and material capital in trying to change their culture, then we really only have 2 other options--
fdcol63,
Please don't hate me for saying this but that looks like one of Barry's false choices.
Just because we aren't spending mountains of cash and and piling up bodies in a futile effort trying to make Ali Baba learn to like Brittany Spears and Sugar Frosted Flakes or not mow down everyone else at the polling booth if they look at him wrong doesn't mean our only option is isolationism.
There is a veritable rainbow of options that can contain Islam or severely dampen its enthusiasm for mucking about with its neighbors and/or the rest of the world.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 04, 2011 at 03:11 PM
Ignatz, I hope you're right ... and I hope we follow up on them.
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 04, 2011 at 03:13 PM
True Captain, he was the pardon fixer for certain financiers, and long in the tooth, Puerto Rican terrorists, and rendition expert
of certain State property to tropical climes, in the last administration, not too mention, his firms involvement in the Gitmo advocates
bar. Raise your hands, who thought this could
go well. Of course, personnel is policy, and one of the faults of the previous tribunals
is apparently the purging of anybody with any acquaintance of the facts at hand,
Posted by: narciso | April 04, 2011 at 03:15 PM
Petulance is a highly unattractive characteristic. Extremely unbecoming in an AG.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2011 at 03:27 PM
The AG is upset with his boyfriend, The One. Don't be mislead. This has nothing at all to do with Congress. The AG was tossed under the bus with Obama's girlfriend.
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 03:31 PM
Oh, lyle, what a relief to know it was you. I had a passing dark thought about the Religion of Peace and thought I'd provoked it.
====================
Posted by: Shall I face SouthEast to Thank? | April 04, 2011 at 03:34 PM
Just heard (delayed) the comments of Todd Beamer's father on this chicken-hearted AG and president. Very powerful stuff.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2011 at 03:40 PM
video of a prickly Holder today
His Pissiness abruptly left following a question about the real possibility of it taking another 10 yrs. for trials to commence, and his ridiculous response that what he's doing today "will hasten the day".
Posted by: DebinNC | April 04, 2011 at 03:59 PM
Feeding your car:
This obviously calls for more central planning.
Posted by: hit and run | April 04, 2011 at 04:08 PM
Thanks for the link, Deb. Now everyone can see what a prick he is.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 04, 2011 at 04:11 PM
I remember when Holder first announced the New York venue, and the response:
Of course, when the President decides a decision on whether to treat something as a crime or a defense issue is to be taken by the nation's top lawyer, that's a decision in itself. Krauthammer nailed it at the time, calling Holder "utterly clueless" . . . best take today is by EmptyWheel at firedoglake . . . except over there they're clueless enough to think Holder's in the right.Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 04, 2011 at 04:13 PM
Lindsey Graham has now proven that he is a first class dunce.
He was certainly out to lunch on the Koran burning. The Krauthammer link above highlights his (correct) point that trying an enemy combatant in civilian court is unprecedented. Here's the video (from Nov '09), and it truly makes Holder look like the idiot he is. (Which may in the case of Graham just show that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 04, 2011 at 04:22 PM
Your brilliant AG: "Sadly, this case has been marked by needless controversy since the beginning."
Which beginning? When Bush sent him to Gitmo? When Obama first complained about the US's lack of moral leadership? When you announced you'd like to try him at the WTC? Today?
Any controvery or opposition or dissent to anything Obama will always be "needless."
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 04:38 PM
Cecil- what about Marcy's post makes you call it the "best take"? Do you think Holder really lost a battle he believed deeply in, really believed strongly in the principle?
I suspect Holder wanted to do what Obama told him to do, and that was to do what Bush didn't do.
If it was something he believed in strongly on principle, I think he would have started by going to talk to his boosters in Congress.
I think he's pissed now because he got left holding the bag, while his boss meets behind closed doors and releases campaign ads about his good character.
Posted by: MayBee | April 04, 2011 at 04:42 PM
This
(a) Has to have been ordered by Obama himself;
(b)Been a personal humiliation to the AG who, among other things, comes from a firm which handles much of the fights for a civilian trial and for closing Gitmo;
and has hired as his chief aides people who have represented terrorists and hold these same views.
with so much of his conduct on the edge of constitutionality and the law, Obama should be chary of continuing on with an AG h has just treated this way.
Just saying..
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2011 at 04:45 PM
Obama may want him "inside the tent", Clarice.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 04, 2011 at 04:49 PM
I wonder if Holder was following WH orders in the New Black Panther case?
Posted by: DebinNC | April 04, 2011 at 04:52 PM
Like I said, not in the tent, under the bus.
Of course, he follows WH orders. Who is he? Bobby Kennedy in the LBJ administration?
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 04:55 PM
I really want to see that petulance, but that link doesn't work for me. Hmmmm
Posted by: Jane | April 04, 2011 at 04:55 PM
Now this is interesting.
It seems the Obamas bought their Chicago house at 5046 S Greenwood Ave for $1,650,000, but the current Zestimate on zillow.com is $740,500.
Woof. A blind man could invest better.
Posted by: Neo | April 04, 2011 at 04:57 PM
"said the president is very concerned about what it sees as a growing backlash against Muslims in this country."
That's the info he got from Sen Durbin, D-Ill,
"The number two Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin’s bungled choice for lead witness is another in a series of Democratic flubs that have paired top Democrats with anti-democratic, terror-excusing Islamists in the United States."
LUN
Wonder why the Democrats have such a strong commitment to the "anti-democratic, terror-excusing Islamist in the US"? Could it be the same reason Sen Kerry was so determined to insure the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War?
Posted by: pagar | April 04, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Porch-
Of course this particular President with his special Muslim-like (but not Muslim!) qualities is able to impart a certain new zing to the concept, but it's the same impulse.
I really get the feeling that he wants us to see the anti-Muslim backlash as worse than any other kind of bigotry.
Posted by: MayBee | April 04, 2011 at 05:04 PM
I wonder though, clarice.
It is much more noble to fight against the evils of Gitmo than it is to actually fight for KSM's innocence in a trial.
This just continues the good fight, doesn't it?
Posted by: MayBee | April 04, 2011 at 05:06 PM
Sorry this is long, but incomprehensibility takes time:
NRO: But don’t you understand the concerns about a U.S. senator determining the limits of free speech?
GRAHAM: Not really. Nobody said anything to me when I said that you can’t burn the flag. People say that is free speech, but I don’t agree. What I was saying is, if I could hold people accountable, I would. But I know that we can’t. I just don’t like the idea of free speech being used as a reason to put our troops at risk. They’ve got enough problems already. I really believe that responsibility ought to be part of free speech. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater. There are a lot of things that you can’t do under the guise of free speech. I just hate it when somebody here, some crazy person, acts in a way that puts our troops in jeopardy. I really feel the need to condemn that. To me, that is not a responsible use of free speech.
NRO: Couldn’t any kind of speech be interpreted as something that could put the troops at risk? Something the president says? Something a U.S. senator says? You could point to any speech and blame it for something.
GRAHAM: Well, that’s what I’m saying. I agree with that. We live in a free-speech society. But when Harry Reid said that the war was lost in Iraq, I didn’t like it. But he has the right to say it. I just want us to be responsible and realize that we are at war. I guess that is my point.
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 05:09 PM
And the reply:
By Mark Steyn
This is just embarrassing.
The guy “putting the troops at risk” here is Senator Graham, and General Petraeus and the other advocates of the one-way multiculti danse macabre. They’re telling our enemies the more you tread on our toes the more we’ll pretend not to notice and try to waltz you gaily round the floor one more time.
Pre-emptive capitulation only invites more and more provocations. Like the Arabs say, a falling camel attracts many knives.
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 05:13 PM
Jane, it's not working for me now either.
.........................................
I guess his Indonesia years, his Pakiston visits, and his close Pakistani college friends at Occidental and Columbia impressed Islam and its adherents on his heart/mind in an indelible way. He has a definite Muslim affinity, or maybe it's just any non-Western place with non-Western people who don't question his awesomeness.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 04, 2011 at 05:14 PM
I don't think so.MayBee. So far every major decision on Holder's watch in which the WH was clearly involved--Black Panthers, this case, Gitmo, the black farmers settlement, etc has been a political disaster ; some really shrewd lawyers HLS and Columbia are cranking out . Matched only by U Va Law School's star, Barbara Lee.
Can't wait till Obamacare's AA elephant on the scales for for the medical professions goes into effect.
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2011 at 05:15 PM
Deb,
I think it was J Christian Adams who tracked the fact that on every day some decision was made in the black panther's case, Holder visited the white house.
Posted by: Jane | April 04, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Is the President's new slogan something he heard Michelle say?
Posted by: MarkO | April 04, 2011 at 05:19 PM
Thanks, Jane, I didn't know that. I bet Holder took the AG gig again because Obama promised him an eventual SCOTUS spot. Ironic, that Holder's faithfully following WH orders has probably made his choice "untenable".. as BO likes to say.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 04, 2011 at 05:21 PM
I'll go with Holder under the bus. The President has decided to run as Alan Alda starring in Mandingo and he believes that having two tall, dark and very stupid men on the national stage at once would be confusing and distracting.
Clarice,
Those aren't scars. The vacuum seal is failing (note the sunken eyes).
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 04, 2011 at 05:28 PM
I really get the feeling that he wants us to see the anti-Muslim backlash as worse than any other kind of bigotry.
I think so too. It's not working, is it? Even the Muddle knows this is bunk, just as they knew it after 9/11.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 04, 2011 at 05:29 PM
His father was a Muslim, after all.
I think it might behoove us as a society to arrange some sort of leaderless flash-mob thing where people across the country go out, buy a Koran, and, all at the same time, desecrate it as they see fit.
No more Terry Jones or cartoon bullshit after that, and Obama can whine about backlashes till the cows come home.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 04, 2011 at 05:51 PM
Is that "Are you in?" headline I saw at Drudge an actual campaign slogan, or is it what Sarkozy was asking him two weeks ago?
Posted by: Elliott | April 04, 2011 at 05:52 PM
Cecil- what about Marcy's post makes you call it the "best take"?
Good description of what happened, and full text transcript, complete with a good analysis of what Holder was probably thinking. I also agree with pretty much everything she says, except when you're supposed to wring hands on how horrible it all is, I give it an eyeroll and say "finally!"
Similar to the coverage on the Libby trial, I disagree with practically every value judgment, but still find it a very good place to glean facts.
Do you think Holder really lost a battle he believed deeply in, really believed strongly in the principle?
Actually, yes. And like most liberals, he's so averse to military matters that he can't even be bothered with learning the basics about military commissions (I also believe he didn't know the history of such commissions when grilled by Graham). It also explains his visible peevishness quite well. I see no reason to assume he's well informed on the subject, just because he ought to be, especially in the absence of any evidence.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 04, 2011 at 05:58 PM