Eric Holder really doesn't get it, does he?

[Puppycow]

Why is it so hard for a democrat to say something so simple? It's not rocket science!

Nicking Our Public Discourse - Mark Steyn (http://article.nationalreview.com/434231/nicking-our-public-discourse/mark-steyn?page=1)

What with the Fort Hood mass murderer, the Christmas Pantybomber, and now the Times Square bomber, you may have noticed a little uptick in attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland in the last few months.

Rep. Lamar Smith did, and, at the House Judiciary Committee, he was interested to see if the attorney general of the United States thought there might be any factor in common between these perplexingly diverse incidents.

“In the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam,” said Representative Smith. “Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?”

“Because of . . . ?”

“Radical Islam,” repeated Smith.

“There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions,” replied Eric Holder noncommittally. “I think you have to look at each individual case.”

The congressman tried again. “Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?”

“There are a variety of reasons why people . . . ”

“But was radical Islam one of them?”

“There are a variety of reasons why people do things,” the attorney general said again. “Some of them are potentially religious . . . ” Stuff happens. Hard to say why.
. . .Why is it so hard to just say "yes"? A simple one-syllable, three-letter word? He can't even say that it "could have been one of the reasons"? :rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Deleted it from "Sports and Recreation" somewhere else I see....

Edited to add:

Its been obvious from early on with Napolitano and others, that the orders from the top in the administration are to not mention Islam in a negative light. By now, everyone in Washington should be aware of it.

I am sure Mr. Holder was operating under the same orders. I am sure the person asking the question knew as well. I am pretty sure it was just political theater.

[trvlr2]

Why is it so hard for a democrat to say something so simple? It's not rocket science!

Nicking Our Public Discourse - Mark Steyn (http://article.nationalreview.com/434231/nicking-our-public-discourse/mark-steyn?page=1)

Why is it so hard to just say "yes"? A simple one-syllable, three-letter word? He can't even say that it "could have been one of the reasons"? :rolleyes:

Bolding mine.

Maybe he was trolling for Jerk?

[Puppycow]

Bolding mine.

Maybe he was trolling for Jerk?

Not sure what you mean. "It could have been one of the reasons" is a pretty mild formulation and he can't even admit that much?

[Brainster]

They don't want to admit it, because if they did, they'd be accepting the case for profiling.

[Monketey Ghost]

Maybe he's afraid of making the same convenient mistake many Americans do: oversimplifying it.

[quixotecoyote]

Are you equally afraid of overcomplicating it?

[Unabogie]

Why is it so hard for a democrat to say something so simple? It's not rocket science!

Nicking Our Public Discourse - Mark Steyn (http://article.nationalreview.com/434231/nicking-our-public-discourse/mark-steyn?page=1)

It think the title of this piece should be "Nitpicking our Public Discourse", because that would answer your question and be more accurate, all in one fell swoop.

[DavidJames]

I see the relationship between radical muslims as terrorist much like I see the relationship between guns and criminals. In both cases we're dealing with criminals, mentally unstable people. With the terrorists, religion is the excuse to kill while with "normal" criminals, a gun is the means.

Normal, mentally healthy people don't commit crimes.

If you're going to blame the religion, then blame the gun.

[tyr_13]

They don't want to admit it, because if they did, they'd be accepting the case for profiling.

That does not follow. That would be accepting one of the reasons that people who advocate profiling use, but not accepting the case.

[NoScotsman]

Folks like Holder believe that radical Islam (i.e., terrorism) is the result of poverty, lack of opportunities, and a necessary result of bad US foreign policy (e.g., blowback). Which is strange, because the exact opposite is true. Radical Islam creates poverty, lack of opportunities, and demands a strong response from the civilized world.

The US doesn't deny resources ... it makes them available (along with the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc). The Taliban (for example) denies the talent and resources of 1/2 their people, they deny them education (can only read the Koran), they deny them news from outside sources, they deny music, pictures, internet, dancing, sex ..... Oh, and they train people to deliberately target civilian populations for destruction.

And yet, for some, the question is "complex" ...

[trvlr2]

Not sure what you mean. "It could have been one of the reasons" is a pretty mild formulation and he can't even admit that much?

I was being humorous.

[Unabogie]

Folks like Holder believe that radical Islam (i.e., terrorism) is the result of poverty, lack of opportunities, and a necessary result of bad US foreign policy (e.g., blowback).

Evidence of this? A quote from Holder will suffice.

[tyr_13]

Folks like Holder believe that radical Islam (i.e., terrorism) is the result of poverty, lack of opportunities, and a necessary result of bad US foreign policy (e.g., blowback). Which is strange, because the exact opposite is true. Radical Islam creates poverty, lack of opportunities, and demands a strong response from the civilized world.

The US doesn't deny resources ... it makes them available (along with the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc). The Taliban (for example) denies the talent and resources of 1/2 their people, they deny them education (can only read the Koran), they deny them news from outside sources, they deny music, pictures, internet, dancing, sex ..... Oh, and they train people to deliberately target civilian populations for destruction.

And yet, for some, the question is "complex" ...

Not to defend Holder, who should have said 'yes' in my opinion, but it is a complex question with many roots, twists, and confounding issues. Poverty does cause some to embrace and thus empower radical Islamist. This can, and does, lead to more poverty. Does that mean radical Islam causes radical Islam?

[Lallante]

Why is it so hard for a democrat to say something so simple? It's not rocket science!

Nicking Our Public Discourse - Mark Steyn (http://article.nationalreview.com/434231/nicking-our-public-discourse/mark-steyn?page=1)

Why is it so hard to just say "yes"? A simple one-syllable, three-letter word? He can't even say that it "could have been one of the reasons"? :rolleyes:

Obviously because of the way the right-wing press reacts to such soundbytes.

"AG CONFIRMS ISLAM AT FAULT IN BOMBING ATTEMPS"
"EVIL ISLAM WANTS TO KILL YOUR FAMILY, CONFIRMS AG"
"ALL RECENT ATTACKS ON AMERICA ARE ISLAMIC - AG ADMITS"
"NUKING IRAN POSSIBLE RESPONSE TO ISLAM ATTACKS ON USA - AG IMPLIES"
etc

etc.

[rwguinn]

Obviously because of the way the right-wing press reacts to such soundbytes.

"AG CONFIRMS ISLAM AT FAULT IN BOMBING ATTEMPS"
"EVIL ISLAM WANTS TO KILL YOUR FAMILY, CONFIRMS AG"

etc.
I knew it was those damned Republicans fault!

[NoScotsman]

Evidence of this? A quote from Holder will suffice.

This is a fair point. Holder could possibly be echoing Obama's views and not his own. However, I must say, Holder was the main advocate for a New York trial for terrorists. He clearly thinks terrorism is simply a criminal matter. He also seems quick to label terrorist acts as isolated incidents. In the recent NYC case he quickly saw this view blow up in his face ... as several Pakistani's were subsequently arrested in connection with this case.

His views are dangerously naive. Some people error by making connections where none exist (conspiracy freaks), and some by failing to make connections where they certainly exist (Holder).

[NoScotsman]

Not to defend Holder, who should have said 'yes' in my opinion, but it is a complex question with many roots, twists, and confounding issues. Poverty does cause some to embrace and thus empower radical Islamist. This can, and does, lead to more poverty. Does that mean radical Islam causes radical Islam?


I would quibble slightly by suggesting that the "question" of radical Islam isn't complex ...it's simple. It's the answer that's complex ... as in, "What are we going to do about it."

And yes, radical Islam does cause radical Islam. It's a downward cycle. Like alcoholism ... you can blame someone other than yourself for your problems, but ultimately it leads you nowhere except to ruin.

In a general sense, I also think that the main effect of terrorism is that is scares people from correctly attributing blame. It's makes the victim blame him/herself. The Comedy Central case, the Denmark cartoon case etc all point to this... The world's journalists, editors, etc have all become cowards.

[Unabogie]

This is a fair point. Holder could possibly be echoing Obama's views and not his own. (Holder).

Evidence of this? A quote from Obama will suffice.

[Darth Rotor]

Evidence of this? A quote from Obama will suffice.
He's not making a claim, he making a reasonable estimation based on the fact that Holder works for Obama, who sets policy.

That said, Holder is smart enough to know that what is uttered in public gets taken and spent in a variety of ways. The man who was badgering him, as Claus used to badger people about evidence, was playing the game of gotcha.

So glad to see our elected sorts use their time so well ... not.

DR

[NoScotsman]

Evidence of this? A quote from Obama will suffice.

Find your own quotes. I don't follow Obama around with a tape recorder nor do I archive his transcripts. Besides, I haven't made any claim, but expressed a summary opinion of Obama's foreign policy views regarding radical Islam based on thousands of statements I've heard him say.

You are welcomed to your opinion regarding Holder ... I just hope no one asks you to defend it.

[Ziggurat]

Not to defend Holder, who should have said 'yes' in my opinion, but it is a complex question with many roots, twists, and confounding issues.

The question of what attracts people to radical Islam is complex, and the question of what to do about it is complex. But neither one of those was the question that Smith asked Holder. The question Smith asked Holder was simple, and the CORRECT answer was "yes", not just the answer he should have given.

Poverty does cause some to embrace and thus empower radical Islamist. This can, and does, lead to more poverty. Does that mean radical Islam causes radical Islam?

Well, yes. Successful ideologies always self-perpetuate. That's what makes them successful (successful in the sense of spreading or surviving, not in the sense of accomplishing anything useful). If they don't self-perpetuate, they will lose to competing ideologies which do.

[Newtons Bit]

I see the relationship between radical muslims as terrorist much like I see the relationship between guns and criminals. In both cases we're dealing with criminals, mentally unstable people. With the terrorists, religion is the excuse to kill while with "normal" criminals, a gun is the means.

Normal, mentally healthy people don't commit crimes.

If you're going to blame the religion, then blame the gun.

People who successfully argue that "the gun made them do it" get locked up in the little padded room in the mental hospital. People who say "God wills it!" are terrorists.

[INRM]

I think Obama wants to let a lot of these attacks happen acting as if he's trying to be reasonable and not go all Bush/Cheney on the situation, once enough attacks happen people will get angry and will practically beg for greater government power to combat the threat, which will be granted of course.

Rather than simply force something on a person, instead, it's far better to make the conditions such that the person will beg for it to be done. It's called rule by consent.

[applecorped]

People who say "God wills it!" are terrorists.


There are no atheist terrorists?

[Ziggurat]

There are no atheist terrorists?

Sure there are. Just like there are insane people who don't say "the gun made me do it". But that's all rather irrelevant, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.

[rwguinn]

I think Obama wants to let a lot of these attacks happen acting as if he's trying to be reasonable and not go all Bush/Cheney on the situation, once enough attacks happen people will get angry and will practically beg for greater government power to combat the threat, which will be granted of course.

Rather than simply force something on a person, instead, it's far better to make the conditions such that the person will beg for it to be done. It's called rule by consent.
If that is thinking, I promise that I will avoid it at all costs...
Conspiracy theories are That-a-way -->

[Unabogie]

Find your own quotes. I don't follow Obama around with a tape recorder nor do I archive his transcripts. Besides, I haven't made any claim, but expressed a summary opinion of Obama's foreign policy views regarding radical Islam based on thousands of statements I've heard him say.

You are welcomed to your opinion regarding Holder ... I just hope no one asks you to defend it.

No, see it doesn't work that way. You pretended to know how other people think, therefore it's on you to back that up. Since I recognized it as bullcrap as soon as I read what you wrote, I called you out on it. The fact that you can't back it up is strong evidence you just made it up.

[Unabogie]

He's not making a claim, he making a reasonable estimation based on the fact that Holder works for Obama, who sets policy.

That said, Holder is smart enough to know that what is uttered in public gets taken and spent in a variety of ways. The man who was badgering him, as Claus used to badger people about evidence, was playing the game of gotcha.

So glad to see our elected sorts use their time so well ... not.

DR

No, he clearly claimed that both Holder and President Obama "believe that radical Islam (i.e., terrorism) is the result of poverty, lack of opportunities, and a necessary result of bad US foreign policy (e.g., blowback)."

That is a claim. Since that claim doesn't square with any known reality as I see it, I asked for any evidence to back it up and all I got was that he doesn't follow Obama around with a tape recorder. Is it too much to ask to stick to facts in this case? Is it really that unreasonable that I, as a non-Teabagger, get sick of seeing everyone who doesn't agree with these guys being accused of "not getting it", "not caring", "not being patriotic", etc?

It's bullcrap, and it deserves to be called out.

[applecorped]

Sure there are. Just like there are insane people who don't say "the gun made me do it". But that's all rather irrelevant, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Just to clarify, people who say "God wills it" are terrorists because they say it or they say it because they're terrorists?

[pipelineaudio]

This is the same pro-la raza nut who condemned the AZ SB1070 before even reading it right?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/

[Unabogie]

This is the same pro-la raza nut who condemned the AZ SB1070 before even reading it right?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/

Teabaggers really hate thoughtfulness, don't they?

"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,"

You mean he's waiting for a thorough review before making a conclusion? What a "nut"! He should use his gut!

Oh, I know, he also said the law was "unfortunate" and "questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government. "

You mean, he questioned it? And now he's reviewing it as part of that questioning? And after he reviews the law he'll decide how the DOJ should react to the new law? And this is bad? Really? This is how you want to go with this?

[Ziggurat]

Just to clarify, people who say "God wills it" are terrorists because they say it or they say it because they're terrorists?

Closer to the latter, but it's only applicable to a subset of terrorists, since not all terrorists say "God wills it" (or any equivalent) at all.

[applecorped]

thank you.

[Newtons Bit]

There are no atheist terrorists?

It wasn't all inconclusive statement. If an atheist really wants to, I suppose it's only fair that he gets to be one too.

[pipelineaudio]

Teabaggers really hate thoughtfulness, don't they?

You're a teabagger?

And are you claiming Holder hasn't previously criticized this law that he didn't read?

[Ryokan]

Fort Hood mass murderer

Why is the Fort Hood shootings a terrorist attack, and the Virginia Tech shootings not? Simply because of the religion of the Fort Hood shooter?

[KoihimeNakamura]

You're a teabagger?

And are you claiming Holder hasn't previously criticized this law that he didn't read?

he's claiming you are deliberately overreading what he said.

Which seems to be a fair reading.