Noonday in the Shade - Ashcroft Awful Attorney General

In April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon — a cyanide bomb — big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.

Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world. Mr. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Mr. Ashcroft acted as if nothing had happened.

Incidentally, if Mr. Ashcroft's intention was to keep the case low-profile, the media have been highly cooperative. To this day, the Noonday conspiracy has received little national coverage.

At this point, I have the usual problem. Writing about John Ashcroft poses the same difficulties as writing about the Bush administration in general, only more so: the truth about his malfeasance is so extreme that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill.

(more)
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/opinion/22KRUG.html?ex=1088896533&ei=1&en=90c6430ccecae7ce>

It would have gotten more posts... :)

sight quickly.

is it because we think Krar was a local, working alone, nutcase?

or is it because we have no way to force Ashcroft or the media to talk about the case?

I'm puzzled too.

Just posting this if you want to post counter arguments to it.

The only one I can see as legitamate is the one about not puting a press release on the arrest.



We can have a legitimate discussion about AG Ashcroft if you would like, but Krugman’s piece is nothing more than a dishonest attack which adds little to the discussion.
Quote:
Published: June 22, 2004n April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon — a cyanide bomb — big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.

Call me crazy, but this is a victory for Ashcroft’s Justice Department and the country. It is amusing that Krugman spins it into something to critique Ashcroft for, but I say bravo to Ashcroft and Justice for catching these scumbags.
Quote:
Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release.

Really?

http://www.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pres...texas111303.htm

http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/...chemweapons.htm

http://www.fbi.gov//page2/april04/040904krar.htm

My goodness Krugman is an embarrassment to himself. He is what happens when ideology becomes more important to someone than facts, evidence or rational discussion. It amazes me that the NYT keeps him on – actually, no it doesn’t.
Quote:
This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world. Mr. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Mr. Ashcroft acted as if nothing had happened.

What is Krugman’s point? Ashcroft is a public official, and we are engaged in a war with Islamofacism, of which Padilla is a member. The Krarr case is not the public’s main concern right now, as it may have been after Oklahoma City. The Administrations priority is Islamic terrorism, but clearly from this article it can also tackle domestic terror at the same time. Does Krugman really believe that we should make domestic terror more of a priority than Islamicand Arab terrorism? Really?
Quote:
At this point, I have the usual problem. Writing about John Ashcroft poses the same difficulties as writing about the Bush administration in general, only more so: the truth about his malfeasance is so extreme that it's hard to avoid sounding shrill.

WTF? How does this guy write for the NYT? So far, it seems that all Krugman is shown is that Ashcroft’s DoJ prevented a potentially catastrophic terror attack, and is holding Padilla, who wanted to set off a dirty bomb. Two victories for the DoJ – and somehow Krugman asserts that this is malfeasance? Someone please help me understand this Bizzaro way of thinking.
Quote:
In this case, it sounds over the top to accuse Mr. Ashcroft of trying to bury news about terrorists who don't fit his preferred story line. Yet it's hard to believe that William Krar wouldn't have become a household name if he had been a Muslim, or even a leftist. Was Mr. Ashcroft, who once gave an interview with Southern Partisan magazine in which he praised "Southern patriots" like Jefferson Davis, reluctant to publicize the case of a terrorist who happened to be a white supremacist?

Is it me, or did Krugman just cross the line? Krugman is trying to imply that Ashcroft sympathizes with Krar’s white supremacy and that was the reason why he “buried” the Krar story (that minds you, the Media was fully aware of.) If it weren’t for NYT v. Sullivan, that would be actionable Libel and is one hell of a allegation to make about someone with no reasonable evidence.
Quote:
More important, is Mr. Ashcroft neglecting real threats to the public because of his ideological biases?

What a total asshat. The DoJ caught this guy, how the hell are they neglecting real threats? This man has a fucking Ph.D., how could he reach such an illogical conclusion?
Quote:
Mr. Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: when he sent a package containing counterfeit U.N. and Defense Intelligence Agency credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong address. Luckily, the recipient opened the package and contacted the F.B.I. But for that fluke, we might well have found ourselves facing another Oklahoma City-type atrocity.

What inanity. You would be stunned about how many Law Enforcement victories are the result of such “flukes.” I’m not buying the description of Krugman’s either, particularly given his dishonesty in the rest of his editorial.
Quote:
The discovery of the Texas cyanide bomb should have served as a wake-up call: 9/11 has focused our attention on the threat from Islamic radicals, but murderous right-wing fanatics are still out there. The concerns of the Justice Department, however, appear to lie elsewhere.

Thank goodness the DoJ is focusing on Islamic terrorism. I know Krugman wants to focus on right wing radicals, but there are left wing domestic radicals too (e.g., ELF). Interesting how Krugman doesn’t mention that.
Quote:
Even in the fight against foreign terrorists, Mr. Ashcroft's political leanings have distorted policy. Mr. Ashcroft is very close to the gun lobby — and these ties evidently trump public protection.

So Ashcroft doesn’t support Gun Control, so this means he doesn’t want to protect the public? Only the socialists at the NYT could reach this conclusion. If Krugman wants to post an argument as to how forcing private law abiding citizens to disarm will make them safer, he is welcome to, but he hasn’t.

Quote:
Mr. Ashcroft told Congress that the law prohibits the use of those background checks for other purposes — but he didn't tell Congress that his own staff had concluded that no such prohibition exists. Mr. Ashcroft issued a directive, later put into law, requiring that records of background checks on gun buyers be destroyed after only one business day.

It seems that Krugman’s real agenda is Gun Control. My question – is there such a prohibition?
Quote:
And we needn't imagine that Mr. Ashcroft was deeply concerned about protecting the public's privacy. After all, a few months ago he took the unprecedented step of subpoenaing the hospital records of women who have had late-term abortions.

Now we are discussing abortion? Does this man have ADD? Once again, Krugman misleads. The case concerns partial birth abortion, and the Plantiff’s argument is that PBA is necessary for the health of the mother. The records are necessary to prove if PBA’s were actually performed for this reason. These records will not be released to the public, and the names and identifying information will be redacted for privacy reasons. Krugman knows this and he knows that this discovery requests often include private information.
Quote:
After my last piece on Mr. Ashcroft, some readers questioned whether he is really the worst attorney general ever. It's true that he has some stiff competition from the likes of John Mitchell, who served under Richard Nixon. But once the full record of his misdeeds in office is revealed, I think Mr. Ashcroft will stand head and shoulders below the rest.

Krugman forgets the 70+ people, including Children, killed by Janet Reno’s DoJ. If this had been a Republican DoJ can you imagine the lunatic rantings of someone like Krugman? I love how Left wing ideologues like Krugman care about Padilla, a fucking terrorist, but can’t seem to muster any indignation about actual innocent people who were incinerated by the DoJ.

Krugman is an embarrassment, and so are those who uncritically accept what he says as the gospel truth.