The funniest/saddest part of the letter is the call for evidence and support to back the claims of the DHS report. When did the right start caring about supporting facts and figures? This is the same group that the overwhelming majority of members believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old without any facts and figures (other than a book where the last of the fairy tales was written over 1,500 years ago.)

A better word usage would be to describe them as practicing their First Amendment rights.

wow. These guys are going to be in the political wildrness forEVER.

“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…”

This is a "vile claim".....seriously??

Bob,

Do you believe I am a terrorist threat?

I'm a vet and a gun owner, and one hell of a shot from a long, long distance. I was even more lethal in close quarters, with or without ballistic aid. Does that make me a terrorist threat? Does that make me more likely than you to become a terrorist?

Do not equate von Brunn with other veterans. Von Brunn was an eighty-eight year- old lunatic, and hated jews. And don't you see, Bob, why her report offended us?

I don't care if conservatives were offended or not. There are definitely right-wing extremist groups in this country; it's an undeniable fact with historical evidence. But the DHS report WAS a slap in the face to every veteran.

"You've served our nation well...fuck you very much. You are now considered a threat to our national security."

Bob, it's not about what was written in the report. It's about how it was perceived. I admit it, I took a small bit of offense, and her response to the criticism did nothing to allay my disdain.

People look at vets differently already. Some hold us in awe, others hold us at arms length, and I get the feeling that those people are always just waiting for us to explode like we're a frag with the pin pulled.

We might be respected, Bob, but some of that respect is more of the "I hope he doesn't freak out on me" type of respect. The media and movies do nothing to dispell this, and reports like the DHS one, and this blog post do not help.

von Brunn was a veteran? So the fuck what? Are vets more likely to go postal than two teenagers with a bag full of ammo? Are we more likely to murder than gang bangers?

What is the real fear, here, Bob?

PPP,

von Brunn was a veteran? So the fuck what? Are vets more likely to go postal than two teenagers with a bag full of ammo? Are we more likely to murder than gang bangers?

I'll go out on a limb her and say "yes," given that military veterans are 100% over the age of 18 and have greater access to guns than teenagers; and they are more likely to have seen combat horrors and suffer from PTSD.

Does that mean that we should fear vets? Absolutely not. The report doesn't suggest that vets are going to come back and join hate groups. It states that vets possess skills and knowledge that the hate groups would find attractive.

I'm a vet and a gun owner, and one hell of a shot from a long, long distance. I was even more lethal in close quarters, with or without ballistic aid. Does that make me a terrorist threat? Does that make me more likely than you to become a terrorist?

No, you're not more likely to be a terrorist, but you're a hell of a lot more likely to be recruited by a right wing terror group than someone like me (who is a lot closer to a peace loving hippy and has never fired a gun.)

Sierra,

Then you need to trust returning vets to make the right decision, a rational decision, and not call them out in a report merely because they have a skill set that might be attractive to an extremist group.

Just because the CIA, NSA, FBI and DHS recruits vets because of their particular skill sets does not mean their enemies are doing so as well. Give us a little credit. We love our country as much as you guys do. That you profile us because we were willing to risk sacrifice is wrong.

Reading comprehension is irrelevant when someone wants to be offended. We had this discussion when the report was released. Saying that veterans have skills that are attractive to rightwing extremists is in no way maligning veterans.

And all of us who have served for any length of time know that there are extremists within the ranks. We work to cull them but we'll never be rid of them all.

So...if something can be perceived as offensive by someone, somewhere it shouldn't be said?

"(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.

— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups."

Where here does it say anything to arrive at the conclusion, "You've served our nation well...fuck you very much. You are now considered a threat to our national security."?

I suppose it’s a matter of perception in that one may read what they want to read into it (reading "between the lines"). But, if this is to be taken literally, where in this report are military folks (specifically) condemned or demonized? If I missed that part, let me know.

brutly,

Are you telling me that the report didn't tweak your sensibilities a bit? Maybe I'm being too sensitive?

That's possible. It's just that I don't normally go around looking for reasons to be offended. I don't even normally respond to people who attempt to offend me.

thespacecowboy,

where in this report are military folks (specifically) condemned or demonized?

Specifically? The missing ingredient is that recruiting isn't necessary. None of these groups target returning veterans. They target people from any background who hate like they hate. That will definitely include some veterans. But tell me, cowboy, why are veterans specifically named? Why not ex-cons, or pastors, or disgruntled policemen? Why not businessmen? Why not factory workers and truck drivers? Why not basement dwelling bloggers? Why focus on veterans?

I'll tell you why. Because it fits the media and entertainment image of what goes on in the minds of combat vets. That's why.

"I'll tell you why. Because it fits the media and entertainment image of what goes on in the minds of combat vets. That's why."

Maybe, possibly, perhaps it has to do with the increased number of returning vets and that they possess skills that the other groups you mentioned do not?

So, the DHS is pandering to the media/entertainment industry to gain acceptance or approval for their claims?

That seems a little far-fetched, but if that is your perception, that's cool.

I agree with Brutalyhonest. When someone wishes to be offended so they can then have something to complain or troll about, no amount of reasoning or logic will stop them.

PartyPooper - are you pretending that theres no wackos in the military? I know one personally. He was a friend of mine in highschool until I found out what a colossal stain on humanity he is. His favorite word was fag and his second favorite word was nigger. I can garuntee you he joined the military just to go kill "towel heads." He is the kind that would treat someone as less than human because they aren't white.

Is the whole military filled with guys like that? Of course not, absolutely not. But we have to be aware of the danger presented when such people are given training and combat experience. Im fairly certain this is the kind of person the DHS report was warning about.

With the military forced to allow convicted criminals and gang members to join the ranks over the last several years due to recruitment shortages, you dont think its possible some seriously dangerous wackos made it in?

Why does this offend you? If the DHS report were more specific and said something like "returning veterans whom are white-supremacists" would you be more satisfied or more offended?

PPP,

you could just as easily make that lame argument, "give us the benefit of the doubt", with the problem of suicide among vets and active soldiers. The fact of the matter is that they are particularly vulnerable given all they have to experience and endure and you can't just go off of faith that they won't be manipulated or make the wrong decision.

I have several places listed here where many notable Reich wingers protested the DHS report also. Unreal.

PPP

I can see how if you were to read the report using a pair of "Republican-issued" reading glasses you could possibly see an offense against our veterans. The intent of their posturing and feigned outrage is the same as it's always been. These guys are just one news cycle away from the next round of pant-wetting and histrionics. It's about fear and manipulation...and they've been very good at it.

Believe me, if the report stated "middle-aged midwestern schoolteachers with their special skills and experience in crowd control and elementary math are attractive to rightwing extremists", they'd be "outraged" that those unpatriotic "danged libruls" were anti-schoolteacher.

JM,

No, I absolutely know there were wackos in service. There are wackos everywhere, in every field. And I also know that it only takes one to do a whole lot of damage. That aside, I do not believe a vet is more apt to become a terrorist than anyone else.

Alex,

I do believe vets are far, far, far more apt to kill themselves than someone else.

you can't just go off of faith that they won't be manipulated or make the wrong decision.

You didn't really mean that, did you? Please explain.

Many apologies ppp...

This question may have been a little disingenuous on my part, "So, the DHS is pandering to the media/entertainment industry to gain acceptance or approval for their claims?"

But, I am a little confused by your statement about the DHS report fitting into a specific "image"? What does that mean exactly? They purposely wrote it in the manner they did to play into stereotypes that are propagated by the entertainment industry?

Chauncey,

Of all the people on this blog, I would hope you'd know by now that I'm not partial nor swayed by any political party's response to anything.

"But tell me, cowboy, why are veterans specifically named? Why not ex-cons, or pastors, or disgruntled policemen? Why not businessmen? Why not factory workers and truck drivers? Why not basement dwelling bloggers? Why focus on veterans?"

Could be veterans were specifically named because THAT was what the research found to be true? It also didn't name circus clowns, pimps, dog-walkers and the pizza delivery guy. Could be because none of these folks ARE attractive to rightwing extremists?

PPP - who are you offended by specifically? The small number of veterans (who may include the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker) that join these groups, the groups themselves who find them sooooo attractive to try to recruit, or the folks who did the research, found the data and reported on it?

PPP,

I guess what I meant was that just as vets are more apt to suicide they can also be far more apt to manipulation from others (extremists) because of the amount of duress they've experienced. I just think it's foolish to say anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt to make the right decision and just ignore the possibility for harm, especially given what they've gone through. Which, to me, was the point of that part of the report.

PPP

Believe me, I do understand how you can have seen an offense, on the surface, where none was intended. And I understand that our nation's love/hate (fear?) relationship with our military has contributed to a hypersensitivity to criticism that is not entirely unjustified. But can you understand that your reaction to the report was EXACTLY what the Republicans were trying to illicit with their fake outrage?

I don't know your political persuasion, I suspect like me, you can find merit in arguments from both side of the aisle. But I am sure, like me, you are also tired of the childish nonsense, from both sides, that does nothing to further discourse and discussion nor find solutions to our most pressing issues as a nation and a society.

If the report is in fact true, and there is no reason at this point to believe it is not - wouldn't our time be better spent trying to understand why these things are so instead of getting caught up in whether or not one demographic group is or is not offended by the data?

Cowboy,

How are vets portrayed in the movies? With a few exceptions, they are either heroes or villains. Rarely are they just normal people. They are many times portrayed as being almost like machines, untouchable, trained for one thing and one thing only. Vets are portrayed sometimes as mercenaries, and, my personal favorite (not!) have formed a small group of elite former soldiers headed by an ex- special forces colonel or general, and are about to take over America, or assassinate the President, or some other godawful outcome that only writers with very, very vivid imaginations can dream up while still awake. Vets are often portrayed as extremely disturbed, balancing precariously on a fulcrum.

The cult of the ex-marine, or ex-special forces genre is creating an impression in America of a group of very unstable people who have seen combat, and now want to fuck America up because of it. Look at the video games available. Don't you see how invincible we are? Don't you see how every vet is dangerous? Didn't you know that if you pissed me off, I could decapitate you with my water bottle? Don't you see how, if approached by an extremist, a vet would be sore tempted to join so he could continue using his assasinatory (NEW WORD) skills regardless of whether he agreed with the extremist or not?

That report indicates that vets should be watched. Profiled, I guess would be the correct way of saying it. I understand the fear. It's not based on anything real, or should I say, any more likely than any other background, but I understand it. Four high profile murders were committed over these last two weeks. Mr. McVeigh was a terrorist. But if you think he was trained to construct the truck bomb he made, you are mistaken. He didn't use his skills to bring down that building. He used skills that anyone can learn from the internet. So him as an example is kind of empty.

Yeah, I do think the media and entertainment industry portray vets as very unstable.

And don't you see, Bob, why her report offended us?

No. I don't PPP. None of the other vets I know were offended. If you were offended, then it was because you are hypersensitive and perhaps have feelings of guilt. What makes you so special that you thought they were singling you out?

It was not 'her' report. It was a DHS report written before she was even confirmed. This was the latest boobytrap stuff left for an incoming administration like Waco and Somalia.

Did you actually read the report? Or did you just listen to the propagandists repeat sentences out of context? The report said that veterans WERE TARGETS OF RECRUITMENT by right wing extremist organizations for the reasons listed that were taken out of context and made to look like smears. They were not smears. They were simple statement of facts. You are an easily manipulated person which you proved for all to see by ignoring my warnings about the tea tantrums. Those wound up being only the astroturfers messages in the media exactly as I predicted. You have been yanked by your nose ring again.

And no. I don't think you are a terrorist or would ever be one. I also don't think you would be easily recruited by the RW Extremists because you are too smart for them and they could never convince you to join them. I do know veterans that I worry about though since they seem to think some of the right wing groups are just hunky dory.

First, your report states that “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…” without listing any data to support such a vile claim against our nation’s veterans.

What an absurd statement. The statement from the report is self evident. Returning troops require no training because they have already received the best military training one can get. The statement is simply obtuse and disingenuous.

I appreciate the well-thought, lengthy reply ppp.

It still does not really answer the question on the DHS purposely playing into these stereotypes. Or that, the DHS had this in mind when drafting their report.

"Why focus on veterans?

I'll tell you why. Because it fits the media and entertainment image of what goes on in the minds of combat vets. That's why."

But, no worries. As I said, I appreciate your response and it's always nice to hear where folks are coming from.

If the report is in fact true, and there is no reason at this point to believe it is not - wouldn't our time be better spent trying to understand why these things are so instead of getting caught up in whether or not one demographic group is or is not offended by the data?

I agree. Whether or not PPP is offended is not the point. The point is the data shows this to be true and we need to deal with it without partisan bickering. And yes PPP I am aware you consider yourself an independent. ALL of us need to come together and find out the causes of why the people (all of them, not just vets) in the report do what they do. I can see the reports concern:vets have training and access. The faux outrage from the right doesn't help. If you are offended by this report, go to your local vet group and help, show that all vets aren't the stereotype you see. Put your experience in the mix. I personally don't see the stereotype PPP does. I may have blinders on being a military brat, but I don't see it.

PPP, When I heard the first "reports" that the DHS study identified vets as a threat, of course I was torqued. Then I read the text and realized it was sensationalized for air time and political manipulation. I didn't specifically name you in my original comment because it wasn't just about your post. The level of idiocy displayed in my local paper's letters and guest op-ed columns would have been shocking if I hadn't expected it.

It is a fact that right-wing hate groups are targeting vets for recruitment. That doesn't mean they are having great success, but it needs to be known so service members can be educated - just like they are about how to not become a victim of terrorism overseas.

The fact that many detaching members are unhappy with the after care (medical, including mental health) they are/aren't receiving is also a recruiting tool.

Did you know all potential service members are now screened for tattoos? Turns out many racist/extremist groups like their marks. Working with law enforcement around the country, the idea is to try to weed out as many as possible as early as possible. Of course, if someone has prohibited ink, they have the option of having it removed then they may (usually) enter.

Forgot this tidbit: Profiling is OK when it's of ragheads and other brown people.

The DHS report named "Left Wing Extremist" groups as well. I don't recall a big ruckus from the left about that. Could be they/we know the difference between "extremist" and ourselves.

Also, a little OT for this thread but wonder if Malkin has pondered the idea that any of the recent right wing extremist shooters would enjoy getting a bead on her non white ass.

Chauncey,

Hey, no problem here. Yes, I realized the Right's indignation was fake, and in many ways, I am more offended by that than anything else. I disagree with how both sides use this to further agendas. But you know, forever war has been politics gone badly astray. Soldiers are always the ones fucked in the middle. I guess my offense was two fronted: First, that vets were singled out (I don't think it's right to single them out, it makes us look like the group most likely to go ballistic) and second, that this immediately became a political spin game.

Yes, I realize what the Right hoped to achieve, nevertheless, good wins out despite the best attempts of treachery to use it for gain. My offense isn't designed to accomplish anything except to say, "Hey, give vets a break. Haven't we paid enough? Haven't we proven that we love our country too?"

Some offense is going to be unavoidable. The DHS made a report, they felt it necessary, and that is that. I just wish they hadn't singled out vets, that's all. Extremism is on the rise in this country, and it didn't take returning war vets to cause that.

They're right. I just found this incredibly offensive bit at http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/#scope

Diabetes is widely recognized as one of the leading causes of death and disability in the United States. In 2006, it was the seventh leading cause of death. However, diabetes is likely to be underreported as the underlying cause of death on death certificates. In 2004, among people ages 65 years or older, heart disease was noted on 68 percent of diabetes-related death certificates; stroke was noted on 16 percent of diabetes-related death certificates for the same age group.

Diabetes is associated with long-term complications that affect almost every part of the body. The disease often leads to blindness, heart and blood vessel disease, stroke, kidney failure, amputations, and nerve damage. Uncontrolled diabetes can complicate pregnancy, and birth defects are more common in babies born to women with diabetes.

As a type I Diabetic I am outraged that those goddamn socialist fascists are saying such things about diabetics. No wonder I can't get any insurance. Obama is a muslim socialist fascist communist who won't show us his birth certificate. I want a grand jury now. And sombody better resign for publishing this offffensive material. [foot stomping, arm waving, LOUD NOISES]

Denial of reality is the Republican core competency.

Brutly,

Did you know all potential service members are now screened for tattoos? Turns out many racist/extremist groups like their marks. Working with law enforcement around the country, the idea is to try to weed out as many as possible as early as possible. Of course, if someone has prohibited ink, they have the option of having it removed then they may (usually) enter.

I did not know that. It's a good idea. It's been twenty-four years since I enlisted. But I do recall that Ranger Indoctrination Program was pretty effective at weeding out the eight balls.

Poopster, if I read correctly, you sort of bragged about being deadly in your first comment, and later complained about the stereotype that vets are...um, deadly.

Poopster, if I read correctly, you sort of bragged about being deadly in your first comment, and later complained about the stereotype that vets are...um, deadly.

"“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…” ... such a vile claim against our nation’s veterans."

Excuse me, but how exactly is this a "vile claim?"

Do returning veterans possess combat skills and experience? Yes?

Are these skills attractive to rightwing extremists? Yes?

So what's the effing problem?

Jane,

I wasn't bragging, just asking Bob if that made me or any vet more likely to be a terrorist.

Graf,

Vets were SINGLED out, that's the problem. I don't see policemen, SWAT men, FBI, CIA, DHS, SS, NSA on that list, do you?