DHS on left wing and right wing threats: a big contrast

Ed Morrisey is first on the draw with a comparison of the DHS' disparate treatment of right and leftwing extremism:

[The report is]is here, courtesy of Jake Tapper.  This is the report heralded by counter-critics of the DHS report on "right-wing extremism" that supposedly disproves political bias in the substance-free attack on conservative critics.  Except that the report on extremism of the Left is much different than the other DHS report, starting with specifics.  While the DHS report focusing on the Right expansively and generally indicted groups opposing abortion, illegal immigration, and federalism, this report instead focuses on actual and specific extremist groups - groups who have a long history of domestic terrorism and violence (page  9)
The first report is based on long debunked stories and factless stereotypes of the Administration's political opponents. The  report on the leftwing extremists seems to have been written on the basis of some real, demonstrable threats.

But there is more, says Ed:
This report differs from the latest in another key way.  Instead of rambling on about how organizing for political change represents a threat to the US, this report focuses on the nature of potential attacks.  Their choices are interesting in and of themselves.  Instead of remarking on potentially violent threats from these groups, which have used violence in anti-globalization protests around the world, torching car dealerships for environmental causes, and destroying laboratories to free research animals, DHS mainly focuses on the threat of cyber attack from these groups.  In fact, that's practically all it discusses, along with a specific list of targets that require protection, including the now-defunct Wachovia Bank.

DHS sees no potential for violence in groups with proven track records of violent terrorism?  Cyber attack is really the greatest threat we can see from Recreate 68, ELF, and ALF?  Really?

The differences between these two reports could not be more vast.  In one, DHS downplays the potential for violence from proven and existing violent groups.  In the other, DHS presumes violence from a wide range of mainstream political points of view without any evidence of a threat, any specific groups, and impugns millions of veterans as potential terrorists.  The people behind both of these reports should be fired, and Janet Napolitano should resign as DHS Secretary.