The second is by "an investigative journalist" in New York. It's not clear what exactly he's investigating here.
Despite the differences, Grant and Biden share more similarities than most might assume. One was a grizzled war hero, who’d crushed the most treasonous movement the country had ever seen. The other is a seasoned politician, known for moderation and political tact.
Which of those were meant to be similarities? And "tact"? That's what Joe Biden is known for, his tact?
I worry that these people actually believe they are facing an "insurgency" that would merit a severe response. They aren't, at all. The 'Stop the Steal' rally created the events in Congress only because the security forces -- who are already more than adequate to stop such a thing if properly employed -- didn't take any of the obvious steps necessary to contest tens of thousands of angry demonstrators. It also took months to arrange, and can't be repeated without a similar public process of organizing that would give security people plenty of time to respond. We already have more than enough force deployed, we just need people to pay attention and do their jobs.
Meanwhile, the threat to the American way is much greater from this impulse to wage war on Americans than from the relatively few crazies out there. Demanding loyalty oaths from every fire fighter in America (as the CIA officer recommends) is crazy. Those guys wear American flag patches on their uniforms because they're already patriots. They picked that line of work to do good things for Americans. Many of them are volunteers, who risk their lives to help their fellow Americans at any hour of the day and without pay. Treating them as suspect is poisonous to our whole culture.
11 comments:
I'd just like to see the laws enforced equally
The unwritten law is enforced equally. BLM and Stacey Abrams are both nominees for the Nobel Prize.
I think this should be filed under "be careful what you wish for".
The people calling for war against any sort of conservative or traditional American seem to think wars only go one way, and targets are always someone else.
Yeah. I know what that war looks like from inside and outside the wire. They have already built the wire. It’s more a trap for them than they realize. Job one for an insurgency like we faced in Iraq is to divide the government from the people. They’re making the demarcation themselves, and proving they don’t trust their own people. That’s going to make a prospective insurgent’s recruiting easier, and cut them off from the people they need to talk with.
Grim, I'm sure you've observed that many Democrats, from the leadership on down to individuals, really don't think they need to talk to anybody outside their circles. Talk as in a real give and take conversation, as opposed to a lecture about why they are right and everybody else is wrong. They are absolutely convinced that if they just limit the influence of a few charlatans *cough*Trump*cough* the great mass of Republicans will grab their hands and join in a chorus of Kum ba ya.
That's what they believe, at least when they aren't absolutely convince there's already millions of militant conservatives organized and ready to assault DC.
the security forces -- who are already more than adequate to stop such a thing if properly employed -- didn't take any of the obvious steps necessary to contest tens of thousands of angry demonstrators
Remember that the CapCops were under the command of Pelosi and McConnell.
And ALSO remember that the CapCops actually let demonstrators into the building, escorting them through the halls.
Cannot get the smoke of Reichstag out of my nostrils here.
The grizzled war hero and the seasoned politician are similar in that they are deep liberals in what the writer considers protective clothing. And he likes them. They are both members of his tribe.
the security forces...didn't take any of the obvious steps necessary to contest tens of thousands of angry demonstrators.
I'm not sure they needed to contest 10s of thousands of demonstrators, angry or not. They did need to contest a small number of hundreds who actually assaulted the Capital Building. They proved inadequate to that task for hours, for a number of reasons, not all of which were their fault.
Eric Hines
What they needed to do was provide adequate security such that the radical element probable among 20-30,000 demonstrators was controllable. They had plenty of forces for that: 2,000 Capitol Police, the Park Police, the Metropolitan Police Department, the DC National Guard (about a battalion), and reachback to the FBI, the Marines at Quantico, the 3rd Infantry Regiment in Arlington, the VA and MD National Guard as well.
There was plenty, gracious plenty, of security force available. Somehow almost none of it was present, and that's a matter worth investigating.
The letter from the police union representing the capitol police was not complimentary to the leadership (or lack thereof, which appeared to be total- rather suspiciously).
From the letter:
"Acting Chief Pittman cites radio communications as a problem during the riots, but the real communications breakdown was silence from our leadership, before the insurrection and while it was underway. They failed to share key intelligence with officers in advance, they failed to prepare adequately, they failed to equip our officers with a plan and on that very day, they failed to lead."
Also mentions the fact that leadership was made aware of intel about the attack in advance, but failed to relay that info down chain at all. Rather curious.
"The disclosure that the entire executive team ... knew what was coming but did not better prepare us for potential violence, including the possible use of firearms against us, is unconscionable,"
It's honestly hard for me to imagine this as a simple failure to act. That idea makes zero sense.
Note they still use the term "insurrection."
Propaganda gotta propaganda.
White? Check.
Christian? Check.
Trump voter? Check.
TERRORIST INSURRECTIONIST WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!
See? It' easy.
Post a Comment