of posters here, and the OP. I watched all four of the videos linked to, and while I found statements that I object to, I don’t think that the characterization of Southers, per this set of videos, is fair. Southers is responding to specific questions, and to that end, attempts to answer them to the best of his abilities. His statements regarding pro-life and white supremacist groups were made in response to the question, “Are there groups inside the United States that pose danger to our security?” (Emphasis mine; Section 7 of the linked vid) His statements in the preceding section concerned Islamic groups that operate in the US, and how groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are more active in the US than the public would think. Therefore, the statements indicating that Southers “is worried more about tea party activists than Islamic terrorists” seem fraudulent, to me. (Given Erick’s front-page apologies and valuation of the truth, I highly doubt that he is being willfully deceptive through his statements, but the statements themselves are wrong, per the evidence provided on this post.)

On the level of blame assigned to the US for Al-Qaeda’s attacks, I assume that the offending statement is this one: “Due to connectivity that we have with countries such as Israel, France, countries that are seen by groups, by Al-Qaeda [sic] as being ‘infidels’ or ‘anti-Islamic’, by the true nature of our alliance with them means that we are subject to being attacked as well.” (0:13, Section 2) I don’t see an assignation of blame here, but rather, a realistic assessment of what our alliance with those countries means to Al-Qaeda. This impression is corroborated by the context, in which he is explaining why anti-terrorism should be a high priority for us as a nation. To wit, the idea that Ron Paul would find a sympathetic ear in Southers wrt the concept of blowback is doubtful.

“Some might argue that our foreign policy exacerbates terrorism” is expanded upon by Southers, and he states that Al-Qaeda, etc. use our foreign policy as part of their propoganda, and that “our foreign policy really needs to engage communities across the globe in explaining what we do, why we’re doing it, and partner with them.” (0:35; Section 1)

His statements concerning a nuclear incident as the result of terrorism are 100% correct short-term, and 100% wrong long-term, so that statement’s fair game. But his statement that terrorists = Muslims is a misconception, while probably a strawman “misconception”, can’t be used to state as a fact that Southers is anti-profiling, or that he will “focus on pro-lifers and Christians instead” as TSA head.

I disagree with a great number of his statements,including some of those that I quote here (Socrates’ post concerning the nuke threat is a great starting point for criticism of Southers), and the list of places where he errs is not a small one. And he may very well indicate a desire to focus on pro-lifers and “anti-government” people elsewhere, as other libs are wont to. But if we’re using these videos as proof, can’t we focus on areas where he is 100% wrong on them, without misrepresenting his POV (again, per these videos)?

I sincerely hope that no one takes this as an attack on themselves or Erick; as one of my few contemporary political heroes, I’m not fond of having to write this post, and if you think that I’m wrong, I welcome a response!

but you should know that at the time of the interview, he was A) an employee of the Dept. of Homeland Security, and B) was asked specifically about “home grown groups”, after he had talked about the surprising and disturbing level of activity of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in the US. There’s plenty to critique about Obama and Southers without using caricature.

Maurice perpetrated his cop-killings in ’09. Also, he did mention Nation of Islam among the “home-grown” groups, so to say that he only mentioned Christians is untrue. Like I said, context is crucial, and I’d highly suggest viewing the videos, if you have the time to do so: they really aren’t as scandalous as this OP would suggest. There’s plenty to disrecommend Southers without using dubious connections, and I saw the left use that tactic enough with Bush to dislike it.