A follow-up on my Minuteman post regarding Homeland Security

Overview

My previous post about the Minuteman Project pointed out that some of the participants have a concern over homeland security. And one of them, Tim Donnelly, asked "what the hell are we going to Iraq for?" Well, George his own self keeps saying over and over that "We're fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here." Bush's statement has some serious irony. See, since we have almost all of military tied up in Iraq, and since we have spent and continue to spend billions upon billions of dollars because of Iraq, it's not so much a case of us not having to fight any terrorists here as not being able to do so. Moreover, there just might be plenty of terrorists in a country that is much closer to our borders than Iraq. More specifically, I am talking about a country much closer to our southern border.

Venezuela is becoming a vexation

The October 6, 2003, issue of U.S. News & World Report had a most interesting article entitled "Terror Close to Home."

The oil-rich but politically unstable nation of Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists, say senior U.S. military and intelligence officials. Bush administration aides see this as an unpredictably dangerous mix and are gathering more information about the intentions of a country that sits 1,000 miles south of Florida.

One thing that's clear is that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is fast becoming America's newest nemesis, U.S. officials say. He has forged close ties with Cuba's Fidel Castro and has befriended some of America's other notorious enemies, traveling to Saddam's Iraq and Qadhafi's Libya. Now, after surviving an attempted coup and a nationwide petition demanding his recall, Chavez is flirting with terrorism, and Washington is watching with increasing alarm.

*******

Middle Eastern terrorist groups are operating support cells in Venezuela and other locations in the Andean region. A two-month review by U.S. News, including interviews with dozens of U.S. and Latin American sources, confirms the terrorist activity. In particular, the magazine has learned that thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Lebanon.

For those of you without a map, Venezuela is on the northern end of South America. It is the eastern neighbor to Columbia, which connects to Panama, which connects to Costa Rica...and if you keep going north, you reach Mexico and then the vast U.S.-Mexico border. And that's just by land. A relatively short trip over the Carribbean Sea takes one to Cuba (or the other Carribbean islands), and from there it is a shorter trip across the Gulf of Mexico to the U.S.

Think about this for a moment, folks. According to the public pronouncements of the Bush administration, Iraq is Terror Central. That's why we are there (pardon me while a chase away another flying monkey). Even if those assertions are true, given the U.S. (excuse me, "coalition") military presence in Iraq and the level of military activity, it is not likely that the terrorists are in any position to plan, coordinate, oversee, and execute terrorist attacks against the U.S. If a terrorist group or network is intent on attacking the U.S., it makes sense to have a logistical base in a country far away from Iraq, for as long as we are tied up in Iraq how are we going to have the resources and ability to combat a terrorist base in a country far away from Iraq? It makes even more sense if that base is in country much closer to the U.S. It makes even more sense to have a logistical base in a country closer to the U.S. that is somewhat hostile to the U.S. (because the terrorists can get more protection and support from that government). And lastly, it makes even more sense if that country presents relatively easy access to the southern borders of the U.S. One could travel by land, thereby avoiding air and sea travel subject to heightened security since 9-11. One could gain access to the U.S. at many points along a very large border. One could travel through countries that do not necessarily crack down on illegal immigration. And one could potentially have access to already established people-smuggling operations. And then there is the possibility of having some sort of terrorist operation on Cuba, which presents other options.

Venezuelan-Middle Eastern ties

According to "Terror Close to Home," the Venezuelan government

has issued thousands of cedulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Colombia, and Middle Eastern nations that play host to foreign terrorist organizations...U.S. officials believe that the Venezuelan government is issuing the documents to people who should not be getting them and that some of these cedulas were subsequently used to obtain Venezuelan passports and even American visas, which could allow the holder to elude immigration checks and enter the United States.

I feel oh so safe knowing that we are all tied up fighting the terrorists in Iraq while other terrorists from the Middle East could get into our country undetected. The article described other possible links with terrorists:

The suspicious links between Venezuela and Islamic radicalism are multiplying. American law enforcement and intelligence officials are exploring whether there is an al Qaeda connection--specifically, they want to know if a Venezuelan of Arab descent named Hakim Mamad al Diab Fatah had ties to any of the September 11 hijackers. The United States deported Diab Fatah to Venezuela for immigration violations in March 2002. A U.S. intelligence official says that Diab Fatah is still a "person of interest" and that his family in Venezuela is "a well-known clan associated with extremist and illicit activity" in northern Venezuela. But when U.S. officials sought Diab Fatah for further questioning, they were told by Venezuelan officials that he was not in the country. Diab Fatah may also be tied to the Caracas mosque of Sheik Ibrahim bin Abdul Aziz, which has caught investigators' attention. One of the mosque's officials, also a Venezuelan of Arab descent, was recently arrested in London for carrying a grenade on a Caracas-London flight.

There are also Arab communities in Venezuela that are becoming sympathetic to Islamic terrorists. The article described Margarita Island, a free-zone on the north coast controlled by Lebanese and Iranian merchants. In a speech in September 2003, General James Hill, then the head of the U.S. Southern Command, explained that Margarita Island was home to support groups for Hamas and Hezbollah and that "These groups generate funds through money laundering, drug trafficking, or arms deals and make millions of dollars every year via their multiple illicit activities. These logistic cells reach back to the Middle East." Good thing we went to Iraq and are still there, huh?

Hugo and Fidel (as in Chavez and Castro)

Venzuelan president Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro are big buddies. "Terror Close to Home" said that the two men spoke on the phone daily. When Chavez came to power over 10 years ago, he decided to follow Castro's model. Over the years he has given large amounts of oil to Cuba (and continues to this day). Moreover, the article stated that Cubans are integral members of Venezuelan intelligence, Cubans form part of Chavez's personal bodyguard detail, that "Cuba provides military training to pro-Chavez organizations," and Venezuelan military personnel have gone to Cuba for training. All of that indicates that Venezuela ain't exactly friendly to the U.S.

The overall situation as of October 2003

Here is the closing paragraph of "Terror Close to Home:"

Given all that is happening in Chavez's Venezuela, some American officials regret that terrorism is seen chiefly as a Middle East problem and that the United States is not looking to protect its southern flank. "I'm concerned that counterterrorism issues are not being aggressively pursued in this hemisphere," one U.S. intelligence official said. "We don't even have flyovers" of Venezuela. Another intelligence official complains that terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. base in Cuba, are not being interrogated about connections to Latin American. The bottom line, when it comes to terrorism so close to U.S. shores, says the official: "We don't even know what we don't know."

(emphasis added). That was a year and a half ago, and we are still in Iraq and will be for the foreseeable future. Still the article described circumstances a year and a half ago. However, as the next post will show, Venezuela and Chavez have very much been in the news in the last two weeks.

Truth in acronyms

I think it is a legal requirement for all federal statutes to have official names that form a nifty acronym. Take for instance the Patriot Act, whose official acronym is USA PATRIOT, which stands for

Uniting and
Strengthening
America by

Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism

However, given the provisions of the Act, I think USA PATRIOT Act is not really accurate. A more truthful acronym would be USA COMRADE Act, which stands for

Unilateral
Suppression and
Abrogation of

Constitutionally
Ordained
Mandates by
Reactionary
Autocrats with
Delusions of
Empire

I am all for catching terrorists, and I am even willing to give up some degree of civil liberties for that cause, but the Patriot Act goes way beyond combating terrorism. I might not have a problem with the Act if our government had actually used it to fight terrorism and produced tangible results--which has not happened. What the so-called Patriot Act does--especially when combined with the Homeland Security Act--is create a framework which could easily be built into a structure of government suppression and intrusion into anyone's life.

Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, made a speech about the Act on October 25, 2001. I will discuss other parts of that speech in subsequent posts, but for now I highlight this exceprt:

Some have said rather cavalierly that in these difficult times we must accept some reduction in our civil liberties in order to be secure.

Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.

(emphasis added). Since 9-11, I have often heard the phrase "Freedom isn't free." I agree with that, but there is something else we should keep in mind: Life without liberty is not freedom.

As the HouseTurns...yet again.

Sometimes the unexpected happens.

Yesterday morning, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert

urged fellow Republicans on Wednesday to abandon new rules that led to a shutdown of the ethics committee and political grief for the GOP.

"I'm willing to step back," Hastert said after a closed-door meeting with members of the GOP rank and file at which he stressed the need to end the controversy.

Wow! As I noted in my previous post, Hastert was willing to go even farther than my proposed compromise.

And then the truly unexpected happened. Last night, the House voted 406-20 to rescind the rules changes instituted in January and go back to the old rules.

That means that The Bug Man is going to be investigated.

It also means that the ethics committee can go forward with investigations of Democrats. Republican Chris Shays (Connecticut) led Republican opposition to the DeLay Rule and pushed for repeal of the new rules, and yet he told the New York Times

If the rules are all right for Tom DeLay, they are all right for everyone else. People feel that Democrats have piled on Tom DeLay and forgotten the inappropriate behavior of Nancy (Pelosi) and others.

Indeed, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Questions about Minority Leader Pelosi's travel expenses have been raised. As anyone who has read this blog knows, I have contempt for hypocrisy. Now that the old ethics committee rules are back in place, I do not want to see hypocrisy from the Democrats. If I do see it, I will criticize them as well.

I think it is highly probable that the Republicans are going to launch into an ethics frenzy against the Democrats (which could show more hypocrisy by them), but the Democrats got what they wanted, and they have to accept that the rules apply to them as well.

Stay tuned, boys and girls...

As the House Turns...on The Bug Man

Two days ago, I started working on a post addressing 1) the ethics committee rules changes instituted by the Republicans, 2) the proposal by the ethics committee chairman, and 3) a simple suggestion for the Republicans. Well, wouldn't you know it? Before I could try to make myself look like a smart guy (as opposed to a smart ass, which admittedly I am), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert went a step beyond what I was going to suggest.

Still, going back and covering items 1)-3) is a worthwhile endeavor (at least so I can feel I did not waste two days of work). The subsequent post will examine Hastert's proposal and the action actually taken by the House.

Let's start with "the DeLay Rule." Back in the middle of November 2004, the House Republicans held a closed meeting which resulted in the demise of a rule House Republicans instituted for themselves in 1993 in order to show the country that they, not the Democrats, were moral and ethical. That rule required any party leaders to resign their leadership positions if they came under criminal indictment. Given that The Bug Man was possibly being investigated by Travis County (Texas) DA Ronnie Earle, the House Republicans decided that their "moral high ground" rule should go away. Instead, they decided that the GOP steering committee would make a ruling and then put it to a vote of the GOP conference. This became known as "the DeLay Rule," although The Bug Man and his supporters said it had nothing to do with DeLay's circumstances...those damn flying monkeys are trying to appear again.

Think about this a minute. The 1993 House Republicans, complaining of how arrogant and corrupt the Democrats had become, instituted the original rule to show they held the moral high ground, and 11 years later, with their leader potentially facing a criminal investigation based on his alleged corruption, just toss the rule aside. It seems that these God-fearing righteous folk actually fear Ronnie Earle--a mere mortal--even more.

At this point, I have question: If DeLay was and is truly innocent (as he and his minions have always asserted), if he is anxious to have a fair hearing of the allegations against him (which he has always maintained), then why in the first place institute a rule that is expressly designed to protect him? And don't even try to claim that the DeLay Rule was not designed to protect DeLay. Were any other House Republicans facing the possibility of indictment? No.

Oh, but I know what some of you wingers are thinking...DeLay his own self called for the repeal of the DeLay Rule, so that proves his is clean. Now, to be fair, as reported by CNN in early January 2005, The Bug Man "asked House Republicans Monday to reverse a December rule change that allows indicted leaders to continue to hold leadership posts in the chamber." Wow--what a guy, right? Not so fast there, pardner. Right after The Bug Man called for repeal of the DeLay Rule--which applied only to Republicans--the Republican majority in the House voted to change the rules for the ethics committee. In other words, they changed the rules that applied to the entire House.

See, the House ethics committee is composed of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Before this year, the rules said that an investigation of an ethics charge would occur automatically unless a majority of the committee voted otherwise after 45 days, which effectively prevented either party from blocking any investigation. The new rule stated that unless a majority of the committee voted for an investigation within 45 days, the charge would be dismissed. This necessarily meant that either party could block any investigation of one of its members. Given DeLay's power and control of the House Republicans, that new rule meant he could make sure he would not be investigated by the ethics committee. And yet this rule change had nothing to do with DeLay's circumstances. Watch out for those damn flying monkeys!

Two other rules changes were also made. This article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has the details.

And just to seal the deal, the Republicans booted three of the Republican members of the ethics committee (which had unanimously admonished The Bug Man three times in the previous Congress) off the committee and replaced them with people more loyal to DeLay. Ah, but that is a story for another time.

So while the DeLay Rule was tossed, it was replaced with rules that protected the Bug Man even more. The DeLay Rule only applied to Republicans, and it did not constrain the ethics committee in any way. The new rules for the ethics committee--the group that could really take The Bug Man down--basically insured that DeLay would not face an ethics investigation. That's why the Democrats have refused to agree to the new rules.

In the last week, the current chairman of the ethics committee, Doc Hastings of Washington, made a proposal of compromise. As reported by the Washington Post on April 21, 2005, in return for the Democrats' agreement to accept the new ethics committee rules, Hastings would agree to establish a subcommittee to investigate the allegations against DeLay (you wingers might feel more comfortable reading a similar story from Fox News, and others can check this AP report). According to another article in the Washington Post,

Hastings also pledged that he would not allow any complaint to be dismissed automatically, but would require a full vote of the committee.

Hastings said he wanted to make the changes as what he called a "gentlemen's agreement," in writing, rather than taking them to the House floor and pushing for formal revision of the rules. Hastings said he believes it is "highly unlikely that the House would be in a mood to change the rules."

(emphasis added). The Democrats did not go for the offer, and that was a good move. Look, I know of no reason not to take Hastings at his word, but there are plenty of reasons to believe that he would not be able to see that his promises were upheld. The primary reason is seen in part in the emphasized quote above: "the House would not be in a mood to change the Rules." The House--the entire House, not a committee--voted to change the rules in the first place. Hastings has no power to enact a change in the rules either by himself or through the ethics committee. The only two people in the House that have the power to do that are Hastert and The Bug Man. Here's what could have happened: the Democrats take Hastings's deal, Hastings in good faith tries to fulfill it, and then Hastert and/or DeLay get the entire House to vote to cancel the deal, then argue that the Democrats are not able to hold up the ethics committee any longer, meaning the new rules stay in place, no action will be taken on the allegations, the charges against DeLay would be dismissed, and the Republicans announce that DeLay has been cleared of all charges.

And even if that scenario could not have happened, the deal should not have been accepted. What procedures would the "subcommittee" follow? Hastings said Republican Melissa Hart would lead the subcommittee, but who else would be on it? What procedures would be in place to make sure that the subcommittee was not comprised solely of Republicans? None of these questions were addressed.

And during this time, the Republicans were saying that The Bug Man would cooperate and that he wanted a chance to answer the charges. Hastings said

The majority leader has said over and over, in communications and publicly, that he has done nothing wrong, and he wanted to have an opportunity to state his case. This is a means by which he can state his case.

Hastert said on Sean Hannity's radio show that "Tom is ready to talk to people and clear himself." And The Bug Man sayeth, "For more than a month, I've said I hope for a fair process that will afford me the opportunity to get the facts out and set the record straight. I welcome the opportunity to address this with the committee."

As I was reading all of this, I realized there was a different deal the Republicans could have offered which the Democrats likely would have been forced to accept. Tell the Democrats that there would be a full, formal ethics committee investigation of DeLay under the old rules if the Democrats would accept the new rules for all future ethics investigations. If the Democrats refuse, the Republicans would have a very strong case for claiming that this is all a political witch hunt after DeLay. If the Democrats accept, DeLay gets his opportunity to clear his name that he insists he wants and is confident he will win. But you see, Republicans don't think that way. It has to be all their way, all the time.

And then Hastert went even further that my proposal...

Some Republicans have very poor observation and/or reading comprehension skills.

Every once in a while I actually get comments from Bush supporters. However, they never seem to address what I wrote in the post to which they are responding. For instance, on October 24, 2004, I posted A response from a Bush apologist on funerals. I wrote a whole series on Bush and funerals (see the series summary and links to each post here), and the Bush apologist responded to one of the posts in the series. However, that response did not even address issues raised in that particular post.

So I check my email this morning and see that I have an "Anonymous" comment posted to this blog (another characteristic of Bushie replies--no one ever has the backbone to be anything other than "Anonymous"). I had trouble figuring out what post elicited the comment. Here is the comment:

He won't be re-elected again. He can't serve more than 2 terms. That doesn't seem like a good argument to make at this stage in the game. Even if everything he said about Bush is true (its not). He needs to make comments about thing he can currently have influence over and not elections gone by. I think it shows why he was not elected.

(emphasis added, otherwise no editing). I at first thought this person was referring to Kerry, especially since I said five days ago in my Dennis Miller post that nobody cares about Kerry anymore. However, the rest of the comment did not seem to be relevant to anything I have posted in months--and that turned out to be an accurate assessment.

I clicked on the link in the email, and it took me to a post entitled Wes Clark sums up Bush, in which Clark explained why Bush is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief ("...he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down.").

Let me be clear...Wes Clark sums up Bush was posted on October 27, 2004. That date appears in blatantly plain view directly above the post (both on its separate page and on the archive page). Consequently, it is beyond dispute that CLARK'S COMMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE THE ELECTION. That means that 1) Bush had not been re-elected when Clark made those comments, and 2) Clark was not referring to an "election gone by."

Un-freaking-believable.

Filibusters and hypocrites

I have never been a big fan of the filibuster. Still, I have to admit that when it comes to some of Bush's judicial nominees (Priscilla Owen in particular), I like the effect. That being said, the procedure has always seemed a bit silly to me. One would think that the Republicans have always felt that way, too. One would think that conservative religious organizations have always felt that way, too.

Well, think again.

Keith Olbermann had a segment on the filibuster furor on the April 25, 2005 edition of his MSNBC show "Countdown." The segment primarily reported on an event called "Justice Sunday," sponsored by Focus on the Family Action, which is led by James "SpongeDob" Dobson, and the Family Research Council, which is another organization of the religious right. These excerpts from "Countdown" show--once again--that the right wing is populated with hypocrites.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: Because even some conservatives don‘t think we should press the issue on requiring votes on judicial nominees. They‘re concerned that in the future, Republicans won‘t be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees.

Well, that may be true. But if what the Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won‘t be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Ah, but what about yesterday? Of course, evidently it was still right when Frist filibustered Bill Clinton‘s nomination of a judge named Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit in 2000, Republicans blocking more than 60 of President Clinton‘s judicial nominees, Democrats having blocked just 10 during President Bush‘s first term.

Members on both sides of the aisle taking offense to Senator Frist‘s threats and tactics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: There seems to be this new attitude that if you oppose any of President Bush‘s judges, then that means that as a senator, you are against people of faith. Now, as a person of faith, I really resent that.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I would call on them not to go down the road of saying that the Democratic senators are not people of faith, or questioning their religious, that they‘re religious bigots. I don‘t think that helps the country, and I don‘t think that‘s fair.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

OLBERMANN: As mentioned, the filibuster stretches back not merely to Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” but to the presidential administration of Franklin Pierce 152 years ago. And, as a last measure of the defense of the minority, it has had many supporters over the years, like the very people of faith who sponsored yesterday‘s Justice Sunday, the group Family Research Council.

Yesterday it was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. That‘s when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam and other meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormel‘s nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.

They did that for a year and a half. The Family Research Council‘s senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.

“The Senate,” he said, “is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it‘s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That‘s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.”

(emphasis added). SpongeDob and the FRC should go back and check out what Jesus said about hypocrites.

Iraq and WMD: Quick, go back and check the spider hole!

The Iraq Survey Group--the organization searching for the WMD in Iraq--has issued its supposedly final report. The report opens with this paragraph:

ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials, examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.

As an aside, perhaps more troops on the ground, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the major combat operations, would have enabled the ISG to complete its investigation and provide more than inconclusive results.

The report's second paragraph says the following:

The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria...Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation. ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.

(emphasis added). As for WMD being moved to Syria before the war, the report concludes that

Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.

(emphasis added). So, the official conclusion is that it is unlikely that Iraq shipped out WMD to Syria, but we cannot rule out the chance that there was "unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials." That was surely worth going to war, huh?

That's what the Bush administration is saying. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told the Washington Post that "Duelfer provides plenty of rationale for why this country went to war in Iraq." What a shame the Bush administration could not provide that rationale.

The Bushies have gone from declaring that without any doubt Iraq had WMD stockpiles, the capacity to produce more, and the ability to use them against the U.S. (see Franks on the absence of WMD, The NIE, generally speaking, The Air Force's position on Iraq's UAVs, and The DIA and chemical weapons) to "we cannot rule out the chance that there was 'unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.'" And, as I said in my recent post about The Minuteman Project, "We know Iraq had no WMD or viable (to put it mildly) WMD programs--AND, as I have explained in numerous posts, we pretty much knew that before the war and could have definitively known that if the weapons inspections had continued."

And we also know that getting rid of Saddam's WMD was the major (by a long shot) reason given for the necessity of the war. As I wrote in Franks on the absence of WMD, Tommy Franks said that "that “We went to war to remove these weapons" (in his book) and WMD were “the reason we went to war” (in Parade)[.]" The night the war started, the President his own self said

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

The same day, then press secretary Ari Fleischer said

The President also believes that there is a gathering threat from Iraq, that with the failure by Saddam Hussein to disarm of his weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to the security of the United States. And therefore, he has come to the conclusion that after exhausting the diplomacy, that military force must be used if Saddam Hussein does not get out of the country.

That summarizes it for him.

*******

And so I think you're going to find the historians, legal scholars will have differing conclusions about these matters. But the conclusion the President reaches is that Iraq's failure to disarm presents a threat to the people of the United States and, therefore, he is prepared to use force.

*******

The President made very plain to the American people that as a result of Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm, and his possession of weapons of mass destruction, he has come to the determination that the only way to enforce the United Nations resolutions now is through the use of force. He gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq in order to avoid military conflict.

The following day, Fleischer put it more succinctly:

This is a war to disarm the Iraqi regime from its weapons of mass destruction.

*******

The President's expectation of all actions military will be to pursue the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. That's what this is about. The reason war has been brought upon us is because Saddam Hussein refused to disarm.

Now the best the Bush administration can do is tell us that we cannot "rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

And Bryan Whitman of the Pentagon has the temerity to say that the ISG's report "provides plenty of rationale for why this country went to war in Iraq."

What a putz.

Of youth and music

Over the last two and a half years, I have really gotten involved in music again. I play regularly in five different ensembles, and I occasionally teach music lessons. One of the groups I play with is the Wichita Falls Community Jazz Band. Yesterday we performed at an event that has become a tradition here. Jazz Fest features all the public schools, Midwestern State University's jazz ensemble, and several other groups. It is a fund raiser for a scholarship fund. Two of the groups in the show were bands from junior high schools. It was great to hear 7th and 8th graders really playing jazz--getting the rhythms and feel right and outright grooving. For me, playing jazz--especially swing--is such a joy, and I am thrilled that it is being taught in junior high here. If anybody out there loves this music, please do what you can to introduce young people to it.

The Minuteman Project and priorities

The month of April has marked the first effort of The Minuteman Project. The project has been a civilian volunteer undertaking to call attention to and try to do something about illegal immigration. The project consists of civilians establishing observation posts along the Mexico-Arizona border in an effort to stop illegal border crossings. The Minuteman Project has been all over the news this month, so if you want more info, just do a web search on "The Minuteman Project."

I am not going to undertake any analysis of the pros and cons of the project, nor I am going to get into the issue of illegal immigration in detail. This post will point out an issue that goes beyond illegal immigration and The Minuteman Project.

An April 1 segment on PRI's "The World" contained comments from Cindy Kolb, who lives near the border. She described some of her experiences and then said the following:

I think that our government has failed us–that we do not have homeland security. There is no homeland security. If you and I can be out here and see fresh foot tracks and food and water and backpacks, who are these people, and how did they get into our country, especially after 9-11?

The broader issue I speak of was fleshed out even more in an April 20 program on BBC radio. As I have noted elsewhere, the BBC does not archive its radio programs, but rather keeps about one week's worth of programs on its website. This is the link for this particular program (entitled "Stopping Mexican Migrants"), but it might not be available after tomorrow. One of the people interviewed was Tim Donnelly, who voted for Bush but said the following:

The President has abandoned these U.S. citizens. He’s abandoned them! They’ve got drug dealers running through their backyards who will kill them if they happen to pop their head out. I mean, what the hell are we going to Iraq for? And hey, I’m not against going to Iraq, okay? I absolutely support those troops, but--my God--American citizens being terrorized in their own backyards, and it is tolerated. If I sound passionate and upset, I think I represent a lot of people here.

(emphasis added). Here is a man who voted for Bush, is not anti-war, and supports the troops. In other words, he seems to be a loyal Republican. Yet he wants to know why we invaded Iraq instead of truly protect our homeland. It is a damn good question. Remember that the primary reason given for the war was to make America safer. We know Iraq had no WMD or viable (to put it mildly) WMD programs--AND, as I have explained in numerous posts, we pretty much knew that before the war and could have definitively known that if the weapons inspections had continued. Just think how things might be if we had spent just a portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on Iraq and applied them to actually securing the homeland. The fiscal reality is that we do not have the money to spend on real homeland security, and we won't for years to come because of Iraq.

I feel safer...how about you?

Speaking of Bolton...a possible unexpected by-product

After publishing my previous post, I went to War and Piece, and found a link to a New York Times article which discusses some of the recently declassified emails about John Bolton. I don't have time to explore this in detail now (I have a big band gig out of town tonight), but I will say here that the activity to come in the Bolton process could do what every official commission has expressly failed to do--examine the politicization of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war.

UPDATE: I got home from my gig about 1:15 a.m., went online, checked Laura Rozen's site, and saw a post that was not there when I wrote the above paragraph. She noted that 1) David Ignatius, of the Washington Post, wrote a column about Ohio Senator George Voinovich and Bolton on April 22, 2005, and 2) that the Cincinnati Post published that column with the following headline: "Facing down a bully." The portion of the column quoted by Rozen really jumped out at me:

The problem with Bolton, in fact, is that he epitomizes the politicization of intelligence that helped produce the fiasco over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration has so far evaded any real accounting for its role in the Iraqi WMD blunder, letting the intelligence community take the hit. The Bolton saga is a microcosm of that larger failure: It's the story of a policy-maker who tried to pressure intelligence analysts into supporting WMD views that turned out to be wrong.

(emphasis added). I really hope this kind of analysis and opinion gains more momentum.

"Go to" sites for Bolton news

The site I check regularly to keep up with the Bolton imbroglio is Laura Rozen's War and Piece. She is doing a great job of gathering info and providing analysis.

Another good site for Bolton news and analysis is Steve Clemons's The Washington Note.

Bush and The Bug Man

In The Bug Man just keeps whining--and another oh so liberal newspaper is critical, I raised the possibility that there are problems between Bush and The Bug Man which could damage DeLay in his current struggles. Then, in working on DeLay admits he is The Bug Man, I discovered that those problems go back several years.

The article I used for that post revealed a less-than-perfect relationship between the two men. According to the report, DeLay was upset with White House pressure--via then press secretary Ari Fleischer--for the House to pass a bill giving tax credits to low-income families.

"Last time I checked," DeLay had snapped to reporters, "he didn't have a vote." DeLay and conservatives resented being forced to accede to what they felt was slapdash legislation--and being made to look miserly for it. Bush didn't back down, saying he wanted a bill passed quickly. The flinty Congressman would not let the matter drop and moments later brought it up with some G.O.P. leaders present. "We didn't appreciate it," he said of the White House pressure. "Well," Bush said with a smile, "we were trying to nudge you along."

*******

Increasingly, the Texas Republican feels that he and his conservative colleagues have been isolated by the Administration, despite their repeated success in passing the President's agenda. "They take the House for granted," a G.O.P. leadership aide said."This was Tom saying, 'Hey, take notice of me.'"

Ooo...me-ow! I had no idea this situation existed. The article detailed one other point of contention between the two:

But sometimes the White House goes too far with its tendency to use him as a foil to show voters that the President is a compassionate conservative. During the 2000 campaign, Bush opposed a DeLay-backed plan on tax credits for the poor to demonstrate that he was a "new kind of Republican," distinct from the G.O.P.'s tightfisted, meanspirited wing. At the time, Bush accused DeLay & Co. of trying to "balance their budget on the backs of the poor." According to a DeLay confidant, Bush later apologized and said he would not use DeLay as a right-wing bogeyman again.

This is serious stuff. To the extent the Republican/Bush agenda has made it through Congress, The Bug Man is a big reason why. DeLay has become very powerful, and he has established that power in large part on his own. More to the point, he does not owe his position to Bush. People like The Bug Man do not like to be ordered around, and they damn sure do not like being made out to be a "bogeyman" by people in their own party. In other words, DeLay has some real power, and he really likes getting his way. The problem for The Bug Man is that no matter how much power he has, he still is not the President, and this President not only likes getting his way, he has more resources at his disposal. And now it looks like the sandbox is not big enough for both of them.

Or are they really friends? This very question was put to Scotty McClellan in the press briefing of April 13, 2005. Check this out:

Q: Scott, you said a couple days ago that, as the President said, he considers Tom Delay a friend. I actually went back -- I never saw the President say that anywhere. He said he had confidence in Tom DeLay. And I also noticed that Tom DeLay said when the President was running for President in 2000 -- or 1999 -- that Bush was not a social friend of his. So does Bush consider --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a number of congressional leaders that he works closely with on the Hill and he considers a friend, sure.

Q: And he considers Tom DeLay a friend?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. I mean, I think there are different levels of friendship with anybody, so -- (laughter.) Well, no, you referred to social friends and -- but, no, he certainly is a friend.

Q: What level of friendship are you referring to here?

MR. McCLELLAN: A friend. The President considers him such. And we support his efforts, along with the efforts of other congressional leaders, to move forward on the agenda that the American people want us to enact.

As the saying goes,"with friends like these..." This is far from a vote of confidence or ringing endorsement. To get the full flavor of McClellan's statements, you really need to see the video. Click on the above link and then click on the video link on that page. McClellan starts talking about DeLay about 1/4 into the video, and the portion excerpted above is about 1/3 in.

Now I really think this situation bears watching. On the one hand, I think that DeLay could not win a power struggle with Bush. It might be that Bush is not going to really support DeLay unless The Bug Man agrees to bow down to Bush and agree to keep doing so. On the other hand, it also looks like Bush does not have control over the House, and that is DeLay's power base. And who knows how The Bug Man will react if Bush hangs him out to dry?

Dennis Miller--what a pathetic hack

As I was watching Dennis Miller on "The Daily Show" two nights ago, I realized what a pathetic hack he has become, and I now know he is a winger for life. He said, "I know everyone thinks I'm a right wing nut now because I backed Bush on this war, but quite frankly, I'm libertarian on everything." (emphasis added). Oh really?

Dennis ain't quite like the libertarians I know.

An interview published on January 24, 2004, in the Daily Nonpareil (a newspaper in Council Bluffs, Iowa), contained the following exchange:

DN: Are you concerned about recent perceived challenges to civil liberties through the Patriot Act that some say may be using national defense as an excuse?

DM: All I know is when Woodward and Bernstein wanted to see what Howard Hunt's library records looked like it was viewed as a seminal moment in the history of journalism. When we want to find out if Ramsey al-Kaboom has taken out a bomb cookbook somewhere it's thought to be Orwellian. All I ask is that if John Ashcroft wants to spy on me that he be so good at it that I never know.

(emphasis added). As I have noted, I have friends who are libertarian (and some are "capital L" libertarians), and none of them have ever expressed any degree of desire to have the government spy on them. In fact, one of them recently wrote his own rant about repealing the Patriot Act. Also, the Libetarian Party has called for the repeal of the Patriot Act. So Dennis Miller is wrong when he says is libertarian on everything.

Dennis is a right wing nut.

• Right wing for sure
  

After insisting that he is not a right wing nut, Miller proceeded to say that

• Bush is an environmentalist because his ranch always looks nice.
• We need to increase oil drilling in Alaska ("because we're going to need gasoline for a while--how many of you are going home in a rickshaw tonight?").
• He doesn't trust any of the alternative fuels (especially hydrogen cars because he does not "want to be in a mall parking lot surrounded by 1000 mini Hindenburgs").
• Jesus drove an SUV ("because He had those 12 losers hanging on to him every day of his life").
  
• Global warming is a joke (because an increase of 1.8 degrees over the last century is "amazingly stable," he could go back to his hotel room and screw with the thermostat and not tell the difference in 1.8 degrees, and if it gets hotter he will just tell his kids they moved to Phoenix).
  

That tune is straight out of the Republican songbook. That establishes him as right wing, but not necessarily a nut.

• Heeeere's Nutty!
  

He has, however, said some things that are on the nutty side. Here's a sample...

On June 18, 2002, Miller made one of his many appearances on "The Tonight Show" and said,

I don’t even understand why we’ve taken nuclear weapons off the table. I mean we treat them like our mother’s good china. We never use them. I think you’ve got to pick a day where there’s no wind, in a desolate part of the Earth, just blow off a bomb just to let them know we’re sitting on a nice hold card, okay?

Nothing nutty about that, huh? Sounds like Dennis is on the Jack D. Ripper program for "purity of essence." Check your fluoride levels, Denny.

In the same appearance, Miller also said

Guantanamo Bay, are these people being treated fairly? Let’s be serious folks. Guantanamo Bay is about as far as our Western sensibilities will allow us to descend as far as putting a prison together. No, you know, it’s no joy ride, but, you know, that being said, if you put the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison outside of Kabul it would be their Epcot.

I'm sure the Afghans were slappin' their knees about that one! But Miller was just getting started about the treatment of prisoners. On his CNBC show on June 8, 2004, he had this to say about Abu Ghraib:

I'm sorry, those pictures from the Abu Ghraib. At first, they, like infuriated me, I was sad. Then like, a couple days later, after they cut the guy's head off, they didn't seem like much. And now, I like to trade them with friends.

The above link also has video links. Then on June 22, 2004, Miller had more to say about Abu Ghraib. As reported by Media Matters,

after reporting that Mel Gibson is the number-one celebrity in Forbes magazine's "Celebrity 100" -- show host and executive producer Dennis Miller displayed the widely circulated image of a hooded Iraqi prisoner with wires attached to his outstretched arms and remarked, "Forbes' least powerful celebrity? You're looking at him." Miller then gestured to the photograph and added, "Screw this guy. ... [He's a] bad guy."

Check out the video links as well. Creepy--and nutty.

And here's one more item about beating people (again from Media Matters) that Miller said on June 28, 2004:

The same day NBC News correspondent George Lewis reported on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw that FOX News Channel's FOX & Friends co-hosts E.D. Hill and Brian Kilmeade had laughed about the videotaped beating of an African American man by white police officers -- an act a top LAPD official described as "Rodney King-esque" -- CNBC's Dennis Miller aired the tape of the beating on the June 25 show, with producer and host Dennis Miller narrating the footage.

From the June 25 edition of CNBC's Dennis Miller:

MILLER: Officials in Los Angeles are vowing to bring to justice any police officers who broke the law during -- [as the officer strikes the suspect repeatedly] Yeah! Get him! -- ooh, sorry, who broke the law during the beating of a suspected car thief.

And just in case you think Miller was not serious, please note that later in the same show, he said the following:

Sometimes you freak out! ... That cop got pissed off at yet another guy putting the general public in harm’s way and hit him with a flashlight eleven times, and I’m telling you, that as many people in this crowd that are applauding that, there are some other people who don’t want to applaud because they don’t want to look politically incorrect, but people are starting to think, yeah, hit him a twelfth time, I’m so sick of it.

And there is so much more, but that is enough for now. Dennis Miller is a right wing nut.

And he is a huge hack.

Miller is a huge hack in several ways. On his "Daily Show" appearance, Miller simply regurgitated material he has been using for the last several years.

• Bush as environmentalist because his ranch always looks good: Used on his "Tonight Show" appearance of February 23, 2003.
• Drilling in Alaska: Used in "Tonight Show" Appearance of November 6, 2001.
• No trust in alternative fuels (especially hydrogen cars): Used on September 12, 2003, on "Hannity & Colmes."
• Global warming jokes: used on "Tonight Show" appearance of April 3, 2003 ("amazingly stable" and "hotel thermostat") and on September 12, 2003, on "Hannity & Colmes" ("amazingly stable" and "moved to Phoenix").
  
• Jesus drove an SUV (because of the "12 losers"): used in an appearance in San Francisco on November 3, 2003. In that appearance he also asked the rickshaw question.
  

And that is not all. He told Jon Stewart that he started a pro-Bush website--"www.W..." He used that same line in his February 23, 2003, "Tonight Show" gig. Miller also explained to Stewart that the difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry is a chess player and Bush is a checkers player, meaning that Kerry takes too long analyzing a situation while Bush acts quickly and decisively. Miller was using that bit as early as July of last year and kept using it all through the campaign. Here's a tip, Skippy: the election was over almost six months ago, and nobody really cares about Kerry anymore.

A person who uses the same material over and over again is not clever, insightful, and ultra hip. A person who does that is a hack.

Another way in which Miller is a hack is that he says one thing and then takes the opposite position in order to kiss the ass of his masters. On the "Daily Show" Miller made a big deal about how being gay is not a choice and that he supports gay marriage--in an effort to show that he is not a right wing nut. He has stated that position for a few years. However, out on the campaign trail, Miller was the warm-up act for Bush at a rally in Wisconsin, where he implied that Kerry and Edwards had some sort of homosexual relationship:

Those two cannot keep their hands off each other, can they? I think I have a new idea for a new campaign slogan -- use the bumper sticker "Hey, Get A Room."

If Miller is really for gay marriage and not against gays in general, why did he use homosexuality as a way to degrade Kerry and Edwards? Well, Bush was there and the Republican crowd wanted to hear something like that. In other words, in order to make sure he could still be the comedic darling of the GOP and also be George's little buddy, he said something in conflict with what he insists he believes. What a hack.

What makes Miller's hike into hackery remarkable can be seen in some of the things he said in one episode of his HBO show in January 2001:

• As much as I'm willing to give Bush a chance, I'm a little nervous about his intellectual capacity.
• Most presidential candidates try to pick a running mate who won't outshine them, but who would that be for Bush? Maybe Wilson the volleyball from the movie Cast Away.
• Let's put Bush's cabinet under the microscope, or, as he calls it, "the little-stuff-to-big-stuff thingy."
• National Security Advisor nominee Condoleezza Rice has often been described as W.'s "foreign policy tutor". Oh, yeah, I love the sound of that. It's nice to know we're signing our nuclear arsenal over to a man who needs after-school help. Don't you think the fact that he needs a tutor ought to be raising more eyebrows than Eminem teaching kindergarten on the planet Vulcan?
• I'll take my shots at Dubya, but I actually have high hopes for the next four years. I see George W. Bush working hard to keep the ambitions of big business and the military in check, and ensure that even the lowest job pays a dignified wage. I believe he'll erase the animus that has divided Washington, and bring both sides of the aisle together. I also happen to believe dogs can talk if you touch them in the right spot, and everyone watching me is happy with their body.

Contrast all of that with something he said in an interview in the October/November 2003 issue of The American Enterprise (published by The American Enterprise Institute):

TAE: Many of your show business colleagues have sharply criticized President Bush, but you like him. Why?

MILLER: He’s much smarter than his enemies think he is. I think he’s a genius. People whine about him getting into Yale—the way I see it, if your old man buys a building you should get into Yale! But I think he could have gotten into Yale on his own; he’s a very smart man.

Un-freaking-believable. As I have pointed out before, ol' George was rejected by the University of Texas Law School, so we all know that he could not get into what was inarguably at that time the most prestigious law school in his native state on his own. That's a real genius.

Miller said something else in that interview that struck me. He was asked about Bush's religion, and part of his answer included a statement that "This is an infinitely complex world." Gee, one might say that such complexity makes the world more of a chess game than a checkers game...

Basically, Miller has ended up kissing the asses of people who routinely engage in actions that he before would skewer. Here's a another tip for you, Dennis: to be included in Bush entourage, you either support the entire agenda or you are out. Why don't you go on a national campaign to get gay marriage legalized and see how long you keep your position as the GOP's resident hipster?

By doing such a 180-degree turn, Dennis Miller has not become just a hack.

He has become a soulless hack.

DeLay admits he is The Bug Man.

Last week, Josh Marshall got an email complaining that he was being so disrespectful to DeLay by calling him "bug man." For all you wingers who are similarly offended, I call your attention to the last paragraph of an article in the June 23, 2003 issue of Time:

For DeLay, a former exterminator from Houston, Bush is a Republican born of privilege and more representative of his party's country-club wing, despite his Midland, Texas, roots and frequent trips to his Crawford ranch. Explaining himself, DeLay simply says, "I'm just a bug man."

(emphasis added). So if calling DeLay "The Bug Man" is disrespectful, then DeLay is being disrespectful to himself. I guess that fits right in with saying that the Democrats' agenda is they have no agenda. Or some such...

NOTE: The article is part of the Time archive, which means it will cost to get a copy. However, a Google/Yahoo/MSN/etc. search with "I'm just a bug man" and "DeLay" will lead to sites that have the above excerpt.

The Bug Man just keeps whining--and another oh so liberal newspaper is critical.

Well, at least he's consistent...

Last week The Bug Man sent out a written letter and an email to his supporters and constituents. The Washington Post described some of the contents of those messages.

DeLay blamed the reports on Democrats, liberal groups and the "legion of Democrat-friendly press" who were trying to undermine Republican control of Congress. "It is abundantly clear that their fundamental strategy revolves around attacking me and working to tear down Republican leadership," he said.

A report from the AP disclosed other statements.

"Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction, and the criminalization of politics," the Texan's campaign added in a defiant rebuttal.

"They hate Ronald Reagan conservatives like DeLay and they hate that he is an effective leader who succeeds in passing the Republican agenda."

*******

"It should come as no surprise that following the 2004 election-year attacks on the president that the Democrats, their syndicate of third-party organizations ... and the legion of Democrat-friendly press would turn their attention to trying to retake Congress," he wrote.

Oh, Bug Man...still blaming the Democrats and the liberal media--even after the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, David Brooks, Newt Gingrinch, and Bill O'Reilly say otherwise.

Before describing yet more voices from the right wing criticizing DeLay, I have some observations about the above statements. First of all, the only way that the attacks on DeLay could be attacks against Republicans in general is for Republicans in general to condone The Bug Man's conduct. Tom DeLay is an arrogant ogre who thinks he does not have to answer to any legal or moral authority, and his main concern is to hold on to his power at any and all costs. If Republicans in general find such conduct and "values" admirable, then the attacks against DeLay are against them as well. You Republicans out there might want to at least contemplate that issue.

Second, as I pointed out in The Bug Man is now displaying the language skill of Bush, The Bug Man said the Democrats have no agenda. Oh wait--that's not really accurate. What he said was "This is the Democrats' agenda. They don't have an agenda."

And third--and this one seems significant--DeLay referred to himself as a "Ronald Reagan conservative." Why did he not say "a George W. Bush conservative" or "George W. Bush Republican"? Regardless of how much actual power The Bug Man has, George W. Bush is the President. George W. Bush--not Tom DeLay--is the leader of the Republican Party. Reagan is dead. Bush is alive and has become the icon of the Republican Party. If I were DeLay, I would want to get the strongest supporters I could find, and they don't come any bigger, badder, and stronger than the President his own self. So why did The Bug Man invoke Reagan and not Bush? Did he not want to mention Bush--or did Bush not want to be mentioned? Perhaps my tin foil hat is fitting a bit too snugly, but I think this issue deserves some attention...

Another Bush backer speaks out about DeLay

On October 17, 2004, the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune wrote "the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States." That same editorial board published an editorial about The Bug Man on April 18, 2004.

The problem for Republicans is that DeLay's troubles only seem to mount, and the notion that he's the victim of a Democratic Party/liberal media witch hunt just doesn't hold water. DeLay was admonished by the House Ethics Committee three times last year. That would be the Republican-controlled House Ethics Committee.

For the good of his party, DeLay needs to answer the questions that dog him about campaign contributions and lobbyist-paid trips and nepotism hires--and step aside as majority leader.

But Republican leaders have to go beyond that. They can't continue to aid the efforts by DeLay to dodge responsibility. The worst example is this: After the Ethics Committee rebuked DeLay for the third time, the GOP leadership neutered the Ethics Committee. The Republican chairman of the committee, Rep. Joel Hefley, was removed from his post over his objections, and the committee rules were changed so either party could block an investigation of a House member.

Republicans can argue that the committee chairmanship was due to rotate. But the rules change to block investigations was an incredibly blind and arrogant tactic. Don't blame DeLay for that one. Blame House Speaker Dennis Hastert for letting it happen.

Hastert may be calculating that his friend DeLay can survive this ethics mess without doing too much damage to his party before the 2006 midterm elections. But the decision to stop the Ethics Committee from effectively doing its business stains the entire GOP leadership.

*******

Republicans have enjoyed a good, decade-long run in control of the House. Maybe so good they've forgotten that they took power in large part because voters were fed up with the arrogant, ethically questionable practices of Washington. It would be ironic if the GOP lost power for the same reason.

Like I said before, irony can be so ironic.

Links for Moon info

I got a great deal of the info for my previous post from two sites. One is called Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon? It is John Gorenfeld's site. Gorenfeld was the first person to write in depth about Moon's "coronation" in March of 2004. His site is comprehensive, detailed, updated, and full of links and sources.

The second site is called Who's driving the bus? It is a blogspot site for someone named Cell Whitman. The site contains info that I subsequently found at several other locations on the web, so I do not know who wrote the material initially, but Whitman's site was the first place I saw it, and I like the way the material is presented there. As with Gorenfeld's site, source citations and links are provided.

The Washington Times and Rev. Moon

Let’s have some fun, shall we? Three days ago I referred to the Washington Times as the Moonie Times. See, the Washington Times is owned by News World Communications, Inc., which also owns United Press International (UPI). News World Communications, Inc. is owned by the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon.

The Moon "coronation" in a Congressional building

So what's the big deal? Well, let me tell you a story about Rev. Moon and how the Moonie Times is his own personal mouthpiece. One of the most amazing things about this story is that it received no coverage from the major media until approximately three months after it happened.

Here is a list of the sources I used regarding the event described herein (in no particular order):

• "The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception;" Washington Post; June 23, 2004.
• "Lawmakers attend Moon ‘coronation’ in Dirksen;" The Hill; June 22, 2004.
• "Rev. Moon holds coronation at Capitol;" World Net Daily; June 14, 2004.
• "Moon Over Washington;" The Gadflyer; June 9, 2004.
• "A Moon for the Misbegotten;" Pittsburgh Post Gazette; June 27, 2004.
• "Religious Leaders Defend Moon's Capitol Hill Coronation As 'King of Peace';" Cybercast News Sevice, July 1, 2004.
  

The date was March 23, 2004. The place was the Dirksen Senate Office Building--that is the office building for the U.S. Senate. The event was an awards ceremony sponsored by the International Interreligious Federation for World Peace (founded by Moon) and the Washington Times Foundation. Among those present for all or part of the ceremony were Congressmen Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Sen. Mark Dayton (R-Minn.). The invitation listed Davis, Weldon and Bartlett and Congressmen Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Chris Cannon (R-Utah) and Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) as “Congressional Co-Chairs.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), House members Tom Davis (R-Va.) and Phil Crane (R-Ill.) and GOP consultant Charlie Black were listed as members of the “Host Committee.”

One hundred honorees were given "national peace awards," and two people received an "international crown of peace award"--Moon and his wife.

And now the fun begins...

After the "national peace awards" were announced, the ceremony began in earnest. John Gorenfeld provided a good description:

Eyes downcast, a man identified as Congressman Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) is bringing a crown, atop a velvety purple cushion, to a figure who stands waiting austerely with his wife. Now Moon is wearing robes that Louis XIV would have appreciated. All of this has quickly been spliced into a promo reel by Moon's movement, which implies to its followers that the U.S. Congress itself has crowned the Washington Times owner.

That's right--Rev. Sun Myung Moon was crowned in a U.S. Senate building by a U.S. Congressman. Oh, but we are just getting warmed up, boys and girls...

After the crowning, Moon gave a lengthy speech. Here are some highlights:

• Moon said that “Hitler and Stalin have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons.”
• Moon said that he has been "sent to Earth...to save the world's six billion people[.]"
• He also declared that "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

Well, I guess if Moon saved and redeemed Hitler and Stalin, he must be the true Messiah...and monkeys are at this very moment flying out of my butt.

The response as reported by the Washington Times

And how did the Washington Times respond to questions about this event? It published an article on July 1, 2004, which was a report of a news conference held by Moon's supporters. In particular, they tried to clarify what "Messiah" meant:

Several of the religious figures further defended Rev. Moon's use of the term "Messiah" to describe himself. They said he should be judged based on his efforts to promote peace.

"The term 'Messiah' is relative," said the Rev. George A. Stallings, the archbishop of the Imani Temple African-American Catholic Congregation in the District. "It depends on your particular religious persuasion. Ultimately, we must judge Reverend Moon not by what he says but by what he does."

The Rev. Michael Jenkins, co-chairman of the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace, a Unification Church affiliate, was one of several speakers who compared Rev. Moon to Martin Luther King, Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jesus Christ. He said Rev. Moon has not claimed to be God.

*******

Archbishop Stallings offered his explanation of those remarks yesterday.

"He does not mean 'Messiah' in the context that a traditional Christian means Messiah," he said. "He is not God. He is the Messiah, namely, the one who has been given the mission by Jesus to bring the world to restoration, to return it to God's original ideals for men and women."

(emphasis added). Oh, really? Let's look one more time at what Moon said: "Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." As far as I am concerned, "Returning Lord" is the term that totally contradicts everything quoted above from the Washington Times article. Furthermore, Moon his ownself did not provide any of those explanations or qualifiers.

And then there are other things that Moon has said in the past that show that his defenders are wrong.

[C]onsider the day in April 2002 when he received the latest in a long series of earthshattering religious visions. This one was especially noteworthy. In it, Moon learned that he had been selected as "the Savior, Messiah and King of Kings of all of humanity" by God. Also on the selection committee: Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and Buddha (in addition to several others, including the godless Communists Marx and Stalin for some mysterious reason).

Anyway, that's how Moon described it in his full-page newspaper ad, which ran in papers all across the U.S. (including the Los Angeles Times). It was a $720,000 print run, but it was worth every penny. Finally middle America would get the word and rally behind their messiah. Except it was a bit of a reach. Moon's captive congregation is accustomed to his indefatigable hubris, but the general public who have yet to send their mind through the laundry just find it repugnant.

But he can't help it. Moon has been claiming for decades (like The Beatles before him) that he is bigger than Christ. In a 1990 sermon, he reiterated this belief (note that Moon always addresses himself in the third person, usually as "Father"):

"Jesus never achieved a thousandth of what Father has done. In his two years and eight months of public ministry, [Jesus] didn't even establish the national foundation. Now, Father has established a foundation of worldwide power that is unprecedented in history."

Moon has a bad habit of comparing himself favorably to his predecessor, proclaiming that he will succeed where Jesus has failed, and so on.

(emphasis added). You might think that with statements like that, the religious right would be coming out against Moon. Well, think again, as I will show in a subsequent post. For now, just consider that the Washington Times is owned by a guy who thinks he is better than Jesus.

Does Moon control the content?

Then consider that while people at the Washington Times insist that Moon does not control or influence the content of the paper, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

• Statements by Moon
  

In a June 23, 1996 speech, Moon said

Since coming to America, Reverend Moon has been the leading force to unite all the various ideologies, in particular, the various denominations of Christianity. Reverend Moon created The Washington Times and the University of Bridgeport in order to lead the media and academic fields. By doing so, Reverend Moon has truly devoted so much for the sake of saving America. Now all those brilliant Americans will naturally follow and respect him.

(emphasis added). So Moon wants to save America, and he created the Washington Times expressly for the purpose of leading the media in that effort--and yet he has no influence over the paper. And the monkeys are still flying out of my butt. Moon went on to say in the same speech that

Since establishing the Washington Times Foundation Reverend Moon has enough strings to pull among influential people.

The Washington Times has become the focal point of the conservative based media of the world through the Internet. The entire world is now subscribing to the Washington Times through the Internet.

(emphasis added). According to an April 2001 story in Brill's Content, Moon said in January 1999 that "In 1982, in accordance with the will of God, I founded The Washington Times....Ever since then, this newspaper has led American public opinion as a conservative news medium showing the path that America must follow." Okay...Moon has declared himself the Returning Lord, and he feels that the Washington Times is following God's will by showing them the path that must be followed in order for him (Moon) to save America--and yet he has no influence over the paper. And the monkeys are still flying out of my butt. Need more evidence? Then check out this statement from a December 23, 1991, speech by Moon: "Look at the Washington Times. No one in America helped to create that. Without Father's guidance for the Washington Times, this country couldn't have found a direction." Still not convinced? On September 12, 2002, Moon said, "I influenced America through the Washington Times and so many different activities.

• The financial factor
  

The Washington Times started in 1982. In the December 23, 1991, speech cited above, Moon said, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times." An article in the September/October 2002 issue of the Cloumbia Journalism Review said, "Exact numbers on the privately owned paper are hard to get, but published reports indicate Moon has sunk nearly $2 billion into the Times." That's approximately $2 billion in 20 years, for an average of $100 million per year. Based on the foregoing, I will assume that through 2004, Moon spent $2.2 billion.

In an interview in July 1990 with the Washington Post (the article is available only through the paper's archives), Moon deputy and then president of the Washington Times Bo Hi Pak "said that the newspaper has lost about $250 million since its founding eight years ago, and he estimated that it continues to lose about $35 million a year." In other words, the paper lost money. $250 million over eight years is $31, 250,000 per year, which means that the paper's losses increased after eight years (to $35 million). A June 18, 2004, column in the Washington Post said that one source estimated the losses at the Washington Times to be $20 million per year. The same column cited "several sources" putting the total losses for 22 years at $1 billion.

Based on the previous paragraph, I will calculate a range of losses. First the low range...Pak said $250 million for the first eight years and $35 million per year after that. I will use that figure for two years, which brings the 10-year total to $320 million. For the next 12 years, I will use the $20 million per year figure, which brings the total to $560 million. The high range is $1 billion.

Now do you think that someone who is willing to spend $2.2 billion and just throw away $560 million to $1 billion on an enterprise is not to going to have any control or influence over that enterprise? Boy, this room is getting crowded with flying monkeys...

• Complaints from editors and examples of following orders
  

The first managing editor of the Washington Times was James Whalen. A March 17, 1992 article in the Napa Sentinel described Whalen's tenure and some of what happened afterwards:

"When we started the paper, there was never any question that it would, in any fashion, project the views or the agenda of Moon or the Unification Church. All to the contrary. We said, look, we're going to put a high wall in place It's going to be a sturdy wall, and it will divide us from you," Whalen said. But Whalen's wall of editorial independence was often breached. "Moon, himself, gave direct instructions to the editors...Ultimately, Moon calls all the shots. The Washington Times has become a Moonie newspaper," Whalen said.

The Washington Times is quoted virtually every hour on the hour by Voice of America and on the BBC. When Whalen resigned, Arneau de Borgrave took over. He maintains that the editorial department has complete freedom. But no way, says William Chester. "I protested to Mr. de Borgrave and I was honest when I saw this happening, telling him that this was unethical, improper, unprofessional, and ought to stop. And I also said it was dumb." Chester and four other editors resigned after de Borgrave ordered an about-face on an editorial critical of the South Korean government.

That was then, so what about more recent times? On August 6, 2004, Gorenfeld was interviewed on NPR's "On the Media." He was asked to give an example of Moon influence on content, and he said

As recently as last year, the Washington Times devoted some space to promoting one of Reverend Moon's ideas for what he calls the Interreligious International Peace Council, with him in charge of it. This is something that the United Nations has not actually considered adopting, and yet the Washington Times, as well as UPI Wire Service, which Reverend Moon bought in 2000, have run articles suggesting that people think it's a good idea.

You can read one such article from the Washington Times here.

• On the other hand...
  

The June 17, 2004, Washington Post column cited above describes a brewing battle at the Washington Times between Moon's group and Wes Pruden, the current editor of the paper.

Insiders say the church's new line is that with the end of the Cold War, it's important to support international organizations such as the United Nations and to campaign for world peace and interfaith understanding. That stance would be awkward for the Times's hard-line editor in chief, Wesley Pruden, and its stable of neoconservative columnists.

*******

Pruden responded yesterday to the reports of friction between the paper and the church over foreign policy: "What you're saying confirms that we operate independently," he said. "They've never told me to put anything in the paper or keep anything out." He added: "I would resist any effort to change the fundamental vision under which the paper was founded."

Coverage of the Korean Peninsula has been an especially delicate issue. The paper's stance has been aggressively anti-Pyongyang. But the church has embraced a conciliatory line, including investment in North Korea. Moon has bankrolled Pyonghwa Motors, which plans to produce cars in the North, along with a hotel, a park and a church there. A senior church official, Ahn Ho Yeol, told a South Korean newspaper last year: "It is our principle to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula by promoting mutual prosperity." Again, that's a dovish sentiment you won't often read in the Times.

*******

Pruden won't give up control of the Times without a fight. And he has powerful Republican friends on Capitol Hill and in the administration who would probably back a campaign to maintain the paper's editorial line and fend off meddling by its owners. What's clear from the Times-Moon dust-up is that the battle for the soul of conservatism has a new front.

So perhaps now the Washington Times is showing that it is independent from Moon's church and policies. However, unless Pruden's "powerful Republican friends" are willing to put up the massive amounts of cash needed to keep the paper going, I find it unlikely that Pruden will win this battle.

Some of you wingers are probably thinking that if the Washington Times follows Moon and veers away from Bush's policies, that will prove that the paper is not a major influence on the GOP. I caution you not to make such an argument until you know more about all the Republicans and religious leaders (such as Jerry Falwell) who support Moon and have accepted big chunks of money from him. You also need to know about the connections between the Bush family and W's administration and Moon.

Details to follow...

The Bug Man is now displaying the language skill of Bush

Today I wandered over to Political Animal to find that guest bloggers are minding the store for the weekend, and one of those guests is Praktike--the regular at chez Nadezhda I cited in Scott McClellan on The Bug Man. Praktike had a post about DeLay's views on the judiciary as stated in his interview in yesterday's Moonie Times (a/k/a the Washington Times). Being a lawyer, I probably should be writing some analysis of those comments, but for now I will refer you to Praktike's comments.

I will highlight another portion of The Bug Man's interview. As I noted in yesterday's post about Newt Gingrich saying that DeLay should stop blaming the Democrats, The Bug Man told Senate Republicans "that, if asked about his predicament, they should blame Democrats and their lack of an agenda." With that in mind, the following exchange made me laugh 'til I stopped:

Mr. Coombs: At your regular press conference later today, 30 minutes will be devoted to answering questions about your ethics.

DeLay: I'm not going to answer them.

Mr. Coombs: Aren't members of your conference going to be scared of the charges?

Mr. DeLay: No, actually, what's going on is I just came from a conference. What they are doing is, they are solidifying and unifying the Republican conference.

Mr. Coombs: Who is "they"?

Mr. DeLay: The Democrats. This is the Democrats' agenda. They don't have an agenda.

(emphasis added). Let me see if I understand...The Democrats' agenda is that they don't have an agenda.

I'm telling ya, I really think The Bug Man was a little careless with the chemicals in his former career.