A reporter at a press conference in D.C. with Grumpy John McCain, who
still wants to rant about Benghazi even after it's become clear there's
nobody out there on that lawn, asked a perfectly sensible question
yesterday:
Q: Do you think there was potentially a greater
national-security threat in apparently thousands of pages of classified
documents ending up on the personal computer of a Tampa socialite who
may have been a friend of the head of the CIA, of secret covert e-mail
accounts involving the head of the CIA, and a top general in
Afghanistan, and the fact that the FBI agent who was complained to stepped out of the chain of command and apparently went to a House Republican leader,
rather than anybody upstairs. Do you think that there's potential --
you put all that together -- do you think that's a greater potential
national security threat than what you're talking about?
You could watch the veins begin to bulge on Grumpy's neck and
forehead as this question went along, and so naturally he burst like a
festering pustule when it was done:
MCCAIN: Well, I say with great respect, that’s one of the
dumbest questions I’ve ever heard. -- I’m answering your question. Do
you want me to answer your question or do you want to interrupt? Which
do you want? -- There are four dead Americans. The lives of other
Americans were put in jeopardy.
This is a matter of four dead Americans. I think that the other issue
raised is very serious, and I think it deserves a thorough and complete
investigation — but it does not rise to the level of an attack on an
American consulate that took four American lives.
OK, just so we're clear: Potential security threat created that
exposes possible Republican chicanery? Never an issue. Tragic incident
in which intelligence details remain unclear, so it can be endlessly
exploited? Yeh, that's what gets Grumpy's attention.
Last week the Polish government announced the thwarting
of a terrorism plot that is worrisome in its audacity and in who was
behind it. In a country with minimal experience of terrorism, the
discovery of a sophisticated homegrown bomber seeking to decapitate the
government by blowing up the parliament and the president has caused
shockwaves and introspection.
The would-be bomber, Dr. Brunon Kwiecień, a forty-five year old
research scientist at Krakow’s Agricultural University, fits few
currently fashionable profiles. Neither a jihadist nor marginally
employed or socially bereft, Kwiecień is married with two children, has a
respectable income, and is reported to have been exceptionally
interested in explosives since his youth. A skilled chemist popular with
his students and considered unremarkable by his university colleagues,
he came up with a truly audacious plot to blow up the Sejm, the Polish
parliament in Warsaw, during a joint session where both houses, the
president and the full cabinet would be present. As Kwiecień is reported
to have conducted visits to Warsaw to select his targets, this appears
to be more than the figment of a demented imagination.
The seriousness of the bomber’s intent was evidenced by the
astonishing haul made by Polish police after Kwiecień’s arrest on
November 9. Among the items seized were a dozen illegal firearms, some
1,100 rounds of ammunition, body armor of various types, several
detonators (including cell phones triggers) and an amazing four tons of
high-grade explosives—more than enough to flatten several city
blocks—which the bomber had access to due to his job. There seems to be
little doubt that Kwiecień had the technical competence to build the
bomb, but his efforts to find collaborators fell short.
As Stratfor explains, this was an attack for which Kwiecień was well suited, requiring a skillset well within his range of competence:
Kwiecien is also a self-proclaimed supporter of Norwegian
ultranationalist terrorist Anders Breivik, who conducted a successful
lone wolf attack in Oslo in 2011. Indeed, tactically Kwiecien's plot
against the Polish government resembled Breivik's in many ways. But his
was only the latest, certainly not the last, thwarted terrorist attack
in Europe, where similar plots can be expected as the economic and
political situation continues to worsen.
Kwiecien allegedly considered Breivik's vehicle-borne improvised
explosive device attack on Norway's parliament building a failure --
Breivik's killed only eight people and failed to inflict catastrophic
structural damage on the building. Breivik used 1 metric ton of ammonium
nitrate-based explosives, commonly called ANFO, or ammonium nitrate
fuel oil, and parked his vehicle on the street, putting some distance
between the VBIED and the building. Kwiecien intended to construct an
explosive device using 4 metric tons of ANFO inside a tanker truck,
crash through the gates of the parliament building and detonate the
VBIED within the courtyard. Investigators believe that it would have
been a suicide mission. Had he executed his attack successfully, he
likely would have created a blast big enough to cause significant
structural damage and loss of life, resulting in more damage and more
deaths than Breivik's explosive device.
According to authorities, Kwiecien began planning for the attack
between July and September. He apparently had traveled to Warsaw to
surveil the area surrounding the building. The fact that there is fairly
light security at the entrance to the parliament building may have
encouraged Kwiecien to go forward with his plot.
It's enough to make one wonder if there are Breivik admirers in the
USA working along similar lines. And whether our law-enforcement
apparatus would be able to catch them in time.
Now comes yet another attempt, courtesy of a right-wing legal foundation
filing another delisting attempt on behalf of a handful of California
farmers, unhappy that they've lost irrigation water to salmon
restoration:
NOAA Fisheries will begin a review of the status of a
population of killer whales that is currently listed under the
Endangered Species Act. This review is prompted by a petition from the
California-based Pacific Legal Foundation to remove existing protection
for these whales.
NOAA said the petition presents new information from scientific
journal articles about killer whale genetics, addressing issues such as
how closely related this small population is to other populations, and
meets the agency's standard for accepting a petition to review.
During the status review, the agency will seek public input and
gather all relevant information to determine if NOAA should propose to
remove this distinct population of killer whales from the federal
species-protection list. The agency cautioned that acceptance of this
petition does not suggest that a proposal to delist will follow.
These fish-eating marine mammals, sometimes called orcas and
officially known as Southern Resident killer whales, were listed as
endangered in 2005, when there were 89 of them in the population.
Southern Resident killer whales spend time in Washington's Puget
Sound and nearby waters. They generally leave for the open ocean in the
winter. Scientists say that there are now 86 killer whales in the
population. The petition asserts that the Southern Resident killer
whales are actually part of a much larger population and are, therefore,
not in danger of extinction.
NOAA insists that accepting the petition does not mean it is necessarily inclined to delist:
We'll begin a review to determine the population's ESA
status, and are soliciting scientific and commercial information about
these whales to ensure that the status review is comprehensive.
Acceptance of this petition doesn't presuppose any particular outcome.
We'll consider and address all substantive information received by Jan.
28, 2013.
The decision comes after the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a petition
in August asserting that the whale, which swims in the marine waters of
the Pacific Northwest, is not biologically different from other orcas
found in oceans all over the world.
The PLF argues the whale's continued listing puts farmers at risk
because salmon and steelhead found in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta are part of the orca's food supply.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a news
release that the PLF's petition presents new information from scientific
journal articles about killer whale genetics. The articles address
issues such as how closely related this small population is to other
groups of orcas, meeting the agency's standard for accepting a petition
for review.
In reality, the newest orca research actually establishes the unique qualities of resident populations.
Because they are social animals, they live in fairly large groups which
move about to various locales, depending on where fish runs are most
abundant. At the same time, genetically distinct populations of
so-called "transient" orcas, or Bigg's killer whales -- which eat marine mammals as opposed to fish -- also move through these same waters.
Orcas are not like other species in their portability: If these
resident orcas become extinct, they will not be replaced in the
ecosystem by other orcas. They will simply be gone.
This would be not just a devastating outcome for people who care
about the health of our waters here on Puget Sound. It would also have a
devastating economic effect: It's estimated that over a million
travelers come to Washington state each year with the purpose of seeing
our killer whales, who are indeed among the world's most easily observed
whale populations.
Fred Felleman, of Seattle, who in 2001 advocated for the
original petition for listing, said the petition now to delist the orcas
is a distraction from the necessary work of rebuilding orca
populations.
"Oh great, here is a chance to biopsy them and tag them and chase
them all over town until we don't have to worry about them any more,"
Felleman said.
To him, the distinct behavior of the southern residents sets them
clearly apart from other orcas. They eat only fish, while other orcas
eat seals and other mammals. They have distinct family groups, dialects,
greeting ceremonies and migratory patterns.
"If there was ever a poster child for this type of subspecies, it's
the killer whales," he said. "It's not just their genetics, it's
culture. These clearly are the tribes of the sea, and if you extirpate
that population not only do you lose the genetic code, you lose a unique
brain trust."
If you want to make your voice heard on this issue, there are two organizations to whom you should write:
NOAA/NMFS
Northwest Region
Protected Resources Division
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115-0070
Attention—Donna Darm, Assistant Regional Adminstrator
In his newest column,
he appears to have hit upon the solution: Lie like a dog about
Democrats, pretend that the raging nativism in the Republican Party
doesn't exist, and in general invert reality by introducing a new viral
right-wing Planet Bizarro meme -- to wit, that Democrats are the reason comprehensive immigration reform will run aground in the coming sessions of Congress.
That's right: In Navarrette's up-is-down recasting of the immigration
universe, the Republican hysterics -- led by Rush Limbaugh and the
Minuteman faction, who nowadays fancy themselves the Tea Party -- who
were responsible for shooting down the 2007 immigration-reform bill,
having declared it "dead on arrival" at the moment of its introduction -- have been airbrushed entirely out of the picture.
But in order to paint a picture of venal Democrats secretly conspiring to keep Latinos in thrall by only pretending to support comprehensive immigration reform, Navarette has to lie. A lot. And indeed he does:
When the media talk about the imminent arrival of
comprehensive-immigration reform, this is what is generally assumed:
Supposedly, the tuneup to our immigration system that President George
W. Bush first talked about at the White House with Mexican President
Vicente Fox in September 2001 is a done deal. We’re told: Democrats want
it, and Republicans need it.
The assessment is half right. The Republicans need it. But the
Democrats don’t really want it. They’ve never really wanted it. They
only say they want it to trick Latinos and immigration-reform advocates
into voting for them again and again.
Which is why reform probably won’t happen. We’ll have a debate but no solution will emerge from it.
So why don’t Democrats want comprehensive-immigration reform? For the
same five reasons that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid teamed up in
2006 and 2007 with the nativist wing of the Republican Party to kill
bipartisan bills and, in 2010, helped scuttle the DREAM Act — a
mini-legalization program for college students and military.
This is just blatantly, egregiously false -- and the nakedness of
these assertions is a clear signal that Navarrette is not simply
mistaken on the facts, but actively knows they are false and is lying.
Navarrette tells a number of other little lies too, including
claiming that labor "opposes any stab at immigration reform that
includes mention of guest workers" (false: unions are fine with
guest-worker programs that ensure normal constitutional rights,
guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, for such workers, including labor
and civil rights) and that Democrats are afraid of pitting Latinos
against labor unions (new flash for Navarrette: Labor unions loudly
support comprehensive reform; indeed, one of the largest unions, SEIU,
counts Latinos as a significant bloc of their base).
But the Big Lie all this is intended to promote is the notion that
it's not Republican nativists -- you know, the folks who would rather
die than allow anything remotely like Navarrette's own "common sense"
proposal to craft a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
already here (not to mention for new arrivals as well), which are
immediately and loudly denounced as "amnesty" -- who are preventing
immigration reform from moving forward. Nope. It's venal conniving
Democrats.
Certainly it's true that there are parts of comprehensive reform that
are hard for progressive reformers to swallow as well (including, most
likely, penalties and fines for immigrants who are found to have
violated existing law), especially for labor unions, many of whose
members may also view the new arrivals with some anxiety. But that is
not a serious obstacle, nor are those currents strong enough to inspire
the kind of nefarious "keep them on the plantation" conspiracy that
Navarrette has fabricated here.
What's most self-evident, though, is that Ruben Navarrette has not single shred of credibility remaining.
