Lefty Indignation: Rolling Stone's Taibbi Wants 'Public Executions' for Party Crashers; NYT’s Rich: 'They Are Party Terrorists'

Has the left finally a reason to be impassioned by a threat to our national security? Michaele and Tareq Salahi seem to have provided that reason.

After the Salahis literally crashed a White House State Dinner on Nov. 24, the two demonstrated how vulnerable President Barack Obama could be to outside intruders. And justifiably, it has not only caused some concern with members of Congress, but also some of the more outspoken members in the media.

On the Fox Business Network's Nov. 30 "Imus in the Morning" program, host Don Imus conveyed this concern, suggesting it exposed potential weaknesses in the U.S. Secret Service's protection of the President (h/t Tim Graham of Newsbusters.org).

More Video Below Fold

"There's no place - the Secret Service doesn't check them out. So you could get on the White House grounds, do whatever the hell you want to do," Imus said."And don't say you can't get on because we've just seen that and then just leave."

But Rolling Stone political reporter Matt Taibbi, a guest on the Imus program, commented that the perpetrators of this alleged intrusion, which is still under investigation, should be made an example out of for the public, execution-style.

"Right, right - I think we should bring back public executions or, you know, drawing and quartering, something like that," Taibbi said. "I mean, just, you know, send the message with this kind of thing. I mean, because obviously they're going to get off with some kind of mild fine or, you know, it's going to be talked away. I think they have to do something very serious to these people. Those were pretty good entertainment."

New York Times columnist Frank Rich, who also appeared on Imus' Nov. 30 program, also expressed some aggravation with the security breach. He told viewers after the Fort Hood incident, security should have been more stringent.

"I mean, it's just unbelievable and frightening, you know?" Rich said. "What is the security in this country? You know, you have the guy at Fort Hood, who we more and more seem to think that, you know, practically wrote a book of warning signals that he was crazy and perhaps had radical political ideas. And that's right in the middle of Fort Hood, and now you have this right in the middle of the White House."

Rich had his own description for the Salahis - "party terrorists."

"Not that they are terrorists, but they are party terrorists," Rich said. "But still, it's a leading edge of something."

Rich's prompt declaration of "party terrorism" is a bit curious, considering his Nov. 15 column following the Fort Hood incident. According to Rich, those exhibiting outrage over Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood shooting, for a "terrorist" act were doing so as some sort of partisan ploy, even if they were "perhaps" correct.

"Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. And he did not act alone. His co-conspirators included our military brass, the Defense Department, the F.B.I., the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and, of course, the liberal media and the Obama administration. All these institutions had failed to heed the warning signs raised by Hasan's behavior and activities because they are blinded by political correctness toward Muslims, too eager to portray criminals as sympathetic victims of social injustice, and too cowardly to call out evil when it strikes 42 innocents in cold blood," Rich wrote in his 1,510-word diatribe on how this heinous act can't be used to encourage Obama to increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

But despite Rich's verdict on party terrorism, he did suggest there should be "some kind of serious investigation," during "a very angry time in this country."

"And, you know, I think - I don't know if Congress should investigate it, but there's really got to be some kind of serious investigation where what happened is to a point that security allows it is made transparent and people are punished, that there are repercussions and systems are changed, because, yes, it is a 400 percent increase over Bush in terms of threats," Rich continued. "We know, you know, it's a very angry time in this country for a lot of people."

And according to Rich, a terrorist threat could come in any form, but likely won't "break security" dressed as a terrorist. So therefore, all threats must be taken seriously - even from a potential "Real Housewives of D.C." show participant.

"And thank God it was these flakes and these idiots who got in there," Rich said. "But you're absolutely right. It doesn't matter who it was, as long as someone could wearing a party costume - it's preposterous. I mean, do they think that anyone who is going to break security at the White House is going to be dressed like a terrorist? I mean, they can be dressed like the ‘Real Housewives of Northern Virginia' or whatever the hell it is."