Important questions about the 2012 attack on the American mission compound in Benghazi, Libya, include who the perpetrators were, how the attack was allowed to happen, and what we can learn from it that will help us improve security there and elsewhere in the future.  Also legitimate are questions about chain of command at the State Department, and whether Congress is adequately funding security for foreign posts.

The rest of the current inquiry is nonsense.  Within days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was sent on a round of interviews about what was known so far about the attack.  I personally viewed her accounting of the tragedy on one Sunday morning news show after another.  She qualified everything she shared by emphasizing we weren't sure about all the details yet.  I watched as she listened in on one program while Libyan President Mohammed el-Magariaf stated emphatically that this was a terrorist attack.  Rice didn't object to this statement; she simply reiterated that there was still a lot to be learned.  

In short order, as more information emerged, the White House was completely, proactively forthcoming.  It was directly from the Oval Office that we learned this was a planned attacked, carried out by organized and well-armed extremists.  That angle was pursued at the direction of the White House, and turned out to be supported by evidence.  This evidence wasn't dragged out of the Administration by the press, or discovered through exhaustive Congressional hearings.  It was only later, when it became clear that there was nothing about this tragedy that could be pinned on the Obama administration that Republicans began clutching at the straw of the tenor of statements immediately communicated after the event.  Unfortunately for them, no wrong-doing occurred there either.

Routing a memo to a dozen people to hammer out wording before going forward is a scintillating and suspect process to exactly no one who has worked in any office, ever.  The changes supplied by the White House itself could be characterized as minimal, and as more cautious than advantageous for their image; caution well-warranted considering the fact that attacks on the embassy in Cairo occurred simultaneously and were NOT connected to terrorists.  

If you'll remember, standing in stark contrast to that caution was the tone of the statements made on this issue by then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was perfectly comfortable tossing out sweeping, irresponsible, anti-Administration accusations, before all of the parts of this tragedy had even stopped moving.  If nothing else struck fear in the hearts of voters imagining such a man sitting in the Oval Office, that kind of impulsive, short-sighted, and self-serving behavior should have.

As for officials in the Internal Revenue Service targeting Tea Party-associated groups for special scrutiny, well, that news is chilling.  Any hint of such activity on the part of low-level agents would be inexcusable.  In this case it sounds like there were IRS employees with significant authority directing activity against these groups – activity that amounts to harassment.  Any American who cares about free speech should be concerned about this.  A full inspector general's report due out later this week will provide more detail.  We need to know how far-up knowledge of this activity went, and whether Congress was purposely misled.  As high as accountability lies, heads should roll.  But hopes that anyone close to president will bear responsibility are sure to be dashed.  

Those opportunistic members of the GOP who are thinking that either of these issues could provide a way out of their real task - redeveloping a political party that represents honest conservative principles - will have to go, once again, back to the drawing board.

 - Julie Boler

I've been sitting here staring at a horrifying picture.  Not this one to the left.  It's horrifying too.  It makes me sick.  But I wanted my readers to get a glimpse of it, so I cut out a little corner of it to post.  Amazing how much just that little corner conveys, isn't it?

The one I've been staring at is bigger and clearer.  It's a bright, color photograph of a half-naked, half-sexily-clad brunette, bullet-ridden and bleeding profusely from the mouth.  It's actually just a dummy - a product sold by a company called Zombie Industries.  They sell it for target practice - a high-end item for the avid sport-shooter.  Zombie Industries offers a variety of human-looking targets, all of which have the special feature of actually bleeding when they are hit.

The photo I was staring at is a mannequin-like shooting target called "The Ex."  The picture was published at Talking Points Memo on Monday.  I want to state that it's a graphic picture first, then tell you it can be found here.  I want people to see it, and I want people to share it.  The only thing I can even think of to do right now is shine some light on it.  The website for Zombie Industries, a whole world of horror for sale in the name of shooting enjoyment, can be found here.  

When this company set up shop recently in the vendor hall at the NRA National Convention in Texas, they had a target dummy on display that looked like President Obama.  You can see a picture of it on their website; TPM also produced a clear and up-close photo.

One presumes that because the target is named "Rocky", is called a zombie, (the website has a zombie motif) and is colored green, the company enjoys plausible deniability against accusations that they are selling shooting targets with features that make it look like the President.  Or, maybe they don't need deniability.  Maybe there isn't anything illegal about it, or of interest to the Secret Service.  Maybe my readers can tell me.

The company sells another target called the "terrorist."  Interestingly, the "terrorist" target dummy is simply a man with a long black beard, dressed in traditional Muslim clothing.  His arms are down, and he has no weapon.  For $89.95, you can purchase this guy and shoot him up until he is soaked in blood, riddled with bullet holes, and unrecognizable.  You can do the same thing to not-Obama-"Rocky," also for $89.95.  

To mimic murdering your ex-girlfriend, though, you have to shell out $99.95.  The copy reads, "$99.95 – Bleeding Alexa Zombie Life-Sized Tactical Mannequin Target - “Bleeds” When Shot!!!"  The ad also points out that the "Ex" is a good buy at that price, because it "can be shot more than 1000+ rounds of assorted calibers" and "reused to finish off another day."  The company provides a paragraph-long back story for Alexa, sure to get you primed for target practice: "She had a wicked mean streak in her and was known for her nasty disposition, especially if she had been drinking."

Wayne LaPierre is on record criticizing the film and gaming industries for their life-like depictions of shooting violence.  He has questioned whether shooting and killing while playing video games with realistic targets could make it more likely for someone to commit murder.  He has not been clear about what type of intervention he is looking for - it's hard to imagine he wants more government regulation imposed on industries that allow one to pretend to murder, given his opposition to government regulation on the industry selling the equipment one needs to actually do it.

But aside from having Zombie Industries remove the Obama look-alike target two days into the conference, (which was surely just a delayed impulse to avoid liability, attention from authorities, or bad press), the NRA kept the welcome mat out for the rest of the company's shooting targets, like the terrorist, and the ex-girlfriend.

I see sickness when I look at the picture of the "The Ex".  I see depravity in the Zombie Industries website.  How do we address it?  I have no idea.  I don't want them shut down - there is no justification for that.  I would love your opinions.  And if you have the stomach for it, look at the website, examine their products, and read some of the ad copy.  And if you're ready to really go into the heart of darkness, watch the video on "Alexa's" page. Watch the group of sportsmen standing in a row in the woods, all together peppering the mannequin's breasts and stomach, catching her back and shoulders when she twists and falls from the impact.  Watch one of the men walk up to her, lying face down in the leaves, and empty his gun into the back of her head.


- Julie Boler

This post is a response to a recent editorial in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative political writer and commentator.  His column is brief, and this post will make more sense if you read it.  I'll wait.

Okay.  So, if you don't know this guy, I can tell you, he is an unpleasant man. 
FOX News loves him as a guest; he contributes a unique blend of erudite and yet intensely sophomoric and hostile commentary on governmental atrocities committed by our President.  Attacking Barack Obama is his fetish.

The first thing I thought when I read this column is that I would rather think the best of others and be a million times disappointed in life, than go through it with as morose and contemptuous an attitude as Krauthammer’s.  His column reveals much more about himself than it does about Mr. Obama.  

With an air of triumph and pride, he delineates the Republican Party’s successes in their ongoing mission to obstruct at every turn the sitting President of the United States.  Their explicitly stated goal has always been to stand against anything the president supports, because he supports it.  One assumes the objective is for Obama to be seen, currently, and by history, as a failed president.  With this column, (rather prematurely, as we are currently in year 4.4 of the Obama era), based on a couple of GOP victories on high-profile votes, Krauthammer has decided to break out the champagne.  

Never mind that the country is hurting because of these victories.  Never mind that its citizens appear to be gradually catching on to the fact that they were won at great expense to all.  Writing with the same tone as would someone expressing an admirable and legitimate position, Krauthammer crows about recent punches Republicans have landed on the president’s jaw.  Not punches thrown in the name of principle or policy, mind you, but thrown because, well, they just hate that guy.

Let's look at some of what Mr. Krauthammer has to say:

"...the victor (a reelected Obama) is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination..."

Mr. Krauthammer, you realize that you folks are the only ones who see it that way, right?  No Democrat I know has any desire for a Caesar in the White House.  On the domestic front, far from wanting to dominate others, we want to empower fellow citizens to each reach a place where they can grow, succeed, and be happy.  We want everyone to have doctors and medicine.  We want to learn to walk ever more lightly on the earth. We don’t want domination internationally, either; you’re projecting.  We want to support fledgling democracies across the world in their efforts toward self-determination.  We want to find peaceful agreement with opposing countries, not destroy them.  I wish you could know what it feels like to be in a party that is for something, rather than against everything.  It can be exhilarating.  It might even wipe that perpetual scowl off your face.

Let’s go on.  What else, Mr. K.?

"...Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown..."

(Eye roll.)  Again...

"Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural and State of the Union addresses into a left-wing dream factory, (including) his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low)…”

Er…  You frighten me, Mr. Krauthammer.

"Obama sought to fracture and neutralize the congressional GOP..."

Wait, Obama did what?  I think Republicans sought to... oh, never mind.  

"Obama cried wolf, predicting the end of everything we hold dear if the sequester was not stopped. It wasn't. Nothing happened."  

Yeah?  Tell that to the people who...  oh, never mind.  

"...Obama’s spectacular defeat on gun control..."

So, "spectacular" is the word that springs to mind for you there, Mr. K.?  I would have gone with "insanely immoral."  Because Republicans didn't oppose this bill in favor of another bill, one with a different approach to protecting the American people from random violence.  There was no pretense of a greater motivation for voting down this bill than a political strike against President Obama.  Mr. K., even if this bill had passed, it would be a time for sober optimism that it might stem the flow of blood.  To call its defeat “spectacular” is obscene.

And do understand, sir: it was a defeat for Obama only in the cheapest political sense.  The real defeat was for the gun-violence victims' families, traveling home from Washington after the vote, to Newtown and Chicago and Tucson and Aurora.  The real defeat will be felt, (terrifyingly enough) by people who don't even know it yet.  Maybe me.  Maybe someone I know.  It’s a defeat for the next victims of mass or otherwise indiscriminate shootings that could have been prevented by this bill.

"For Obama, gun control was a political disaster. He invested capital. He went on a multi-city tour. He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing...  Obama failed even to get mere background checks."

You usually hear the somewhat unsophisticated label "pervert" applied to someone with socially frowned-upon sexual proclivities.  I don't normally use the word myself.  But what can one say reading this stuff?  "He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing."  Charles Krauthammer is a pervert.   

Finally, Krauthammer wraps up his column with a sarcastic, school-boy taunt; his take on the Obama Presidency to date: 

"From king of the world to dead in the water in six months. Quite a ride."

Republicans are a tribe.  They have retreated into a national yet somehow provincial horde.  They defend their holdings with all their might.  They see the rest of us as constant threats to their sovereignty and survival. 

Democrats are a party of many tribes.  In the current iteration of the two parties, we are simply the one more comfortable with a broad mix of folks, a wide diversity of opinion within the party, and the ability to think of unlike groups as potential members of coalitions, coming together around overlapping concerns.

Republicans are starting to understand that such a conglomeration, with varying backgrounds, needs and priorities but with a firm set of shared ideals, is likely to keep growing; in size and therefore power.  Their response is to reluctantly edge open the gate to their compound, remain inside, and beg others to come in and join the tribe.  Their strategy is to tell these others that they would benefit from coming inside the compound and hating everyone outside it.  They’ll even accept those who look like outsiders, as long as they agree to mimic and obey tribal customs and dictates.

Welllll, GOP, good luck with that.  You have quite a cheery spokesperson in Charles Krauthammer.  Most of us are honestly hoping you will ditch him and his ilk, pass through the gate, leave the tribe behind, and join the rest of us.  Not to be Democrats, necessarily.  Just come out here away from that tribe.  With us, you can believe anything you want, live the way you prefer, and promote anything you believe in.  That's how we roll out here.  We just ask that you don't sacrifice the good of the people for the will of that angry little tribe.

Then maybe you can get back to making real contributions on important matters.  From a sane conservative perspective, if you like.  On important matters like the economy, defense policy, governmental effectiveness and transparency, tax policy, and so on.  You're needed.

In the meantime, I just hope the rest of us can survive the tribe.

Julie Boler