One more post on Newt and the NYC mosque

Overview

The last statements in Newt's essay I will expose as a steaming pile concern the name "Cordoba House." These statements are hypocritical, misinformed, and simply wrong.

Newt's fifth set of bullshit statements

Here's what Newt had to say about the name "Cordoba House:"

The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

Newt wrote another rant about the NYC mosque, and I need to include a passage from that.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba House”—which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.

We have lots of ground to cover, so buckle up, boys and girls.

Hello, pot. Meet kettle.

I guess Newt would consider me ignorant. Well, to some extent, that was an accurate assessment last week. Like Newt, I also have a degree in history, but my college studies focused on American, Greek, Roman, and Russian history. In the years since, I have done some study in areas of Muslim history, but that dealt largely with the Crusades. I really did not know much about the history of Cordoba.

I have now done some research about Cordoba, which necessarily required me to do research into related topics. Thus, I am at worst much less ignorant now than I was last week. I will say that my research and my writing in this post are in no way definitive or conclusive or necessarily accurate. However, based on what I found and what Newt wrote--and did not write--in his diatribe, there is a greater than zero chance that Newt is the ignorant one.

So let's take another look at Newt's statements in light of some history.

Conquering army replaced church with a mosque

It is true that an invading Muslim army captured the city of Cordoba (also known as Cordova) shortly after invading Spain in 711. Newt makes it sound like as soon as the Muslims took Cordoba, they converted the Christian church and soon made it the third largest mosque in the world.

That is not what happened.

According to this source, when Cordoba fell to the Muslims, "One of the conditions of the surrender of the city was that the Christians should be allowed to retain the exclusive use of their churches. The Moors, however, took possession of half the church of San Vicente[.]" Thereafter, the two faiths shared the building. Then in 785, the Muslim ruler of Cordoba, Abd-er-Rahman, bought the half of the property belonging to the Christians. It was soon after that construction of the Great Mosque of Cordoba began. [NOTE: Every source I found on the internet said that the Muslims purchased the property in or around 785.] The Christians then rebuilt their church on the outskirts of the city. [NOTE: The source for the rebuilding is a travel brochure, so make of that what you will.]

So the information I have found shows that the church was not destroyed when the Muslims took over Cordoba, Muslims shared the building with Christians until 785, then paid the Christians money for their half of the building, and allowed the Christians to build another church.

Construction on the mosque began in 786, but it took almost 200 more years before construction and expansion of the mosque was completed. So the mosque did not become the third largest in the world quickly.

All of this negates the impression given by Newt that the evil invaders came in, immediately desecrated a Christian site, and then destroyed it and replaced it with a huge mosque.

But why would Newt--the man with multiple history degrees--leave out all this history? He left it out (assuming he knew it at all) because it would run counter to his obvious objective of portraying Cordoba, and thus Park 51, as an example of religious intolerance. What a douchebag.

Another reason Newt did not mention all this history is that it counters his claim that Cordoba is a symbol of Islamic conquest and thus the name "Cordoba House" is an insult. That discussion is next...

Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest and triumphalism

Once again Newt ignores history. Not only that, but he provides no history to support his bold claims. And that's because the actual history puts a big dent in his claims.

• Some characteristics of Muslim rule under the Umayyad caliphate
  

At the time of the Muslim conquest of Spain (711), the Muslim empire was ruled by the Umayyad Dynasty, which formed the Umayyad caliphate (a "caliphate" was the state/governmental structure). The capital of the Umayyad caliphate was Damascus, Syria.

A caliphate's leader is the caliph. One definition of "caliph" is "the title of the successors of Mohammed as rulers of the Islamic world[.]" There could be only one caliph. Some of the rulers that were below the caliph on the organizational chart were emirs. Emirs would be similar to provincial governors in the Roman empire. From 711 to 929, Muslim Spain was an emirate, not a cliphate, meaning that until 929, the rulers of Spain were emirs, not caliphs.

The Umayyad caliphate came to an end in 750 when the Abbasids drove the Umayyads out of the Middle East and moved the capital to Baghdad. Only one member of the Umayyad Dynasty, Abd-er-Rahman, escaped this coup. He eventually went to Muslim-controlled Spain, known as al-Andalus, and in 756 he became the emir of al-Andalus and made Cordoba his capital. So began the Umayyad dynasty that would rule al-Andalus for almost 300 years.

It is important to note that the Umayyads had become very unpopular among many Muslims. As you read what follows, keep in mind that it was the Umayyads who ruled when the Muslims conquered Spain and it was the Umayyads who subsequently ruled in Cordoba. A major reason for the dislike was that many felt the Umayyads were too secular. As stated in this discussion of the Umayyads on the website IslamiCity.com,

With the advent of the Umayyads, how ever, secular concerns and the problems inherent in the administration of what, by then, was a large empire began to dominate the attention of the caliphs, often at the expense of religious concerns - a development that disturbed many devout Muslims. This is not to say that religious values were ignored; on the contrary, they grew in strength for centuries. But they were not always at the forefront and from the time of Mu'awiyah the caliph's role as "Defender of the Faith" increasingly required him to devote attention to the purely secular concerns which dominate so much of every nation's history.

*******

[T]he Umayyads, during the ninety years of their leadership, rarely shook off their empire's reputation as a mulk - that is, a worldly kingdom[.]

This attention to the secular was described as follows in an online Encyclopedia of the Middle East:

It is probably impossible to judge the Umayyad rule objectively because they had angered both the Ulema, the religious scholars who kept most of the records and made religious decisions, and the non-Arabs. Their story is told mostly through the voice of the Abbasids who overthrew them. They were despised for a long time by both by Sunni and Shia Muslims because they allegedly suppressed the Caliphate as a religious institution and ruled in effect as secular kings.

So, the Umayyads were not as religious as many thought they should be, and many thought that the Umayyads in fact suppressed religious matters while paying too much attention to secular matters. Hmmm...Does that sound like rulers that would be favored by today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists?

Today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists probably wouldn't approve of these things done by the Umayyads.

Muawiyah (the first Umayyad caliph) cultivated the goodwill of Christian Syrians by recruiting them for the army at double pay, by appointing Christians to many high offices, and by appointing his son by his Christian wife as his successor. His sensitivity to human behavior accounted in great part for his political success.

*******

In the administration of law, the Umayyads followed the traditions set by the Hellenistic monarchies and the Roman Empire. The conqueror's law--in this case Muslim law (sharia)-- applied only to those of the same faith or nationality as the conquerors. For non-Muslims, civil law was the law of their particular millet (separate religious community, also called milla); religious leaders administered the law of the millet. This system prevailed throughout Islam[.]

(emphasis added). I am not claiming that non-Muslims had total freedom or that life for them was perfect under Muslim rule, but the above excerpt shows that there was a degree of tolerance and freedom that I submit has not been and would not be allowed by "Newt's Islamists"--the people that are today's radicals/extremists/fundamentalists.

The point of this discussion of the Umayyads is that radical/extremist/fundamentalist groups like Al Quaeda, the Taliban, the Wahhabis, and others would like dislike the Umayyads and what they did and how they did it. Since Cordoba was conquered and then ruled by the Umayyads, I have a problem seeing how today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists would embrace Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.

And more history raises more reasons why Cordoba would not serve as such a symbol.

• Conditions in Cordoba under Muslim rule
  

What actually took place in Cordoba under Umayyad rule provides further evidence that today's radicals/extremists/fundamentalists would not tout Cordoba as a universal symbol for their cause. Check out this excerpt from a paper by Dean Derhak entitled "Muslim Spain and European Culture:"

In his book titled, "Spain In The Modern World," James Cleuge explains the significance of Cordova in Medieval Europe:

"For there was nothing like it, at that epoch, in the rest of Europe. The best minds in that continent looked to Spain for everything which most clearly differentiates a human being from a tiger." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 70)

During the end of the first millennium, Cordova was the intellectual well from which European humanity came to drink. Students from France and England traveled there to sit at the feet of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars, to learn philosophy, science and medicine (Digest, 1973, p. 622). In the great library of Cordova alone, there were some 600,000 manuscripts (Burke, 1978, p. 122).

This rich and sophisticated society took a tolerant view towards other faiths. Tolerance was unheard of in the rest of Europe. But in Moorish Spain, "thousands of Jews and Christians lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim overlords." (Burke, 1985, p. 38) The society had a literary rather than religious base. Economically their prosperity was unparalleled for centuries. The aristocracy promoted private land ownership and encouraged Jews in banking. There was little or no Muslim prostelyting. Instead, non-believers simply paid an extra tax!

"Their society had become too sophisticated to be fanatical. Christians and Moslems, with Jews as their intermediaries and interpreters, lived side by side and fought, not each other, but other mixed communities." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 71)

[NOTE: All the sources cited by Derhak are listed at the end of his paper.] And then there's this description of Cordoba:

Nearing the end of the 1st Millennium, Cordoba was the intellectual center of Europe. Students from all over Europe came to be taught by Arab, Christian, and Jewish scholars in the great Library of Cordoba, which held over 600,000 manuscripts. The rich and complex society had a tolerant view of other faiths. Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in harmony, and the society had a literary base. Private land ownership was encouraged, as well as banking among Jews. Non-believers in the Muslim faith were simply levied a special tax.

Instead of being the center of all Muslim oppression and intolerance--like Newt would have you believe--it turns out that Cordoba allowed multiple faiths and was a leading center of learning, not just for Muslims, but Jews and Christians as well. And Jews and Christians were allowed to own property. In short, the Umayyad rulers of Cordoba were similar to the Umayyads that once held the caliphate, and, for the times, Cordoba was a tolerant and open society.

And once again, I point out that these circumstances would not meet the approval of today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists, and that provides more support for my argument that they would not view Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.

NOTE: Life in Cordoba for non-Muslims apparently was not totally free. There were limitations and restrictions in addition to the tax mentioned above. See the next-to-last paragraph on page 4 of this paper.

• Orientation of the mosque and declaration of a caliphate of Cordoba
  

There are yet more historical facts which shoot holes in Newt's unsubstantiated, half-assed idea that "every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest."

The first of these is the orientation of the mosque of Cordoba. All mosques are supposed to be oriented on an east-west axis so that worshippers can always face Mecca when praying. However, this was not done with the mosque at Cordoba. From Medieval Iberia: an encyclopedia (p. 586):

The mosque’s orientation is incorrect, which is only partly explained by the orientation of the former church. Instead of facing Mecca (east), as would be expected, it faces south, adopting the orientation of the Umayyad mosque of Damascus; politicideological allegiances with the Umayyad and Syrian past, expressed in this manner, proved more important than correct direction of prayer.

Stated differently, the north-south orientation of the mosque seems to have been intended as paying homage to Umayyad caliphate which was overthrown in part because of its moderate and tolerant ways. Also, it would seem to be a denial of the primacy of Mecca. Why would present-day Islamists then consider the Cordoba mosque as a symbol of triumph over Christianity and the West?

In 929, the ruler of Spain, Abd al-Rahman III, declared himself caliph and established what was known as the caliphate of Cordoba. Why is that significant? Recall the earlier description of emirs and caliphs. There could be only one caliph for all of Islam. During the Umayyad rule of Spain, the caliphate was controlled by Abbasid Dynasty, located in Baghdad. As noted in Medieval Iberia: an encyclopedia (pp. 257-258), Abd al-Rahman III "thus server[ed] Muslim Spain, politically and religiously, from the rest of Islam." Stated differently, Abd al-Rahman III openly broke away from and defied the rest of Islam. Because of that, I really do not see how "every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest."

Conclusion

The historical facts and analysis presented above support a strong argument that Cordoba in not recognized by Muslims (be they Islamists or not) as an example and symbol of Muslim conquest and triumphalism. I would gladly respond to Newt's historical basis for his statement to the contrary, but he does not bother to include any such basis. Instead, as he usually does, he simply makes inflammatory statements and expects everyone to believe them because he's the almighty Newt.

The history that I found indicates that Cordoba was the opposite of what Newt expressly and impliedly claims. The history I found indicates that Cordoba was tolerant of other faiths, a relatively open society, and a great intellectual center of learning for Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus, history tends to show that Cordoba was not and is not now a symbol of Muslim conquest, oppression, or triumph. History also shows that initially naming the proposed Muslim community center and mosque in NYC "Cordoba House" was not and is not an insult to anyone except Islamic extremists.

Simply put, history shows that Newt is wrong.

Ron Paul on the NYC mosque

Three days ago, Ron Paul made very clear his opinion on the NYC mosque in a post on his website entitled "Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy on the NYC Mosque!" I encourage everyone to read that post. His analysis is unflinching and at times scathing.

And I have to say I agree with most of it. Consequently, I see no need to discuss it at length in this post. Instead, I would prefer people to go to Paul's site and read his post.

I will, however, quote one statement which shares something with my bottom line view. Recall that I said in my first post on this subject that

My opinion is based on the First Amendment and the right of religious freedom in this country. Any other basis for any position on this matter is, in my opinion, misguided.

Paul's statement I will quote here is based on the concept of property rights rather that the First Amendment freedom of religion, but the last half of his statement is exactly how I feel about defending freedom of religion in this case. Here is Paul's statement:

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech.

Go read Paul's post.

More on Newt and the NYC mosque

Overview

This post will continue examination (and shredding) of an "essay" Newt posted about the proposed Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero. Specifically, I will show that Newt's assertions about religious tolerance are meaningless, ignorant, and that what he wants has pretty much already been happening.

Newt's fourth set of bullshit statements

Among other things, these statements once again show that Newt is trying to tie religious freedom in America with religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

I first need to discuss the name of the project. The name for the overall project was initially "Cordoba House." This is something else Newt rails about, and I will discuss that in another post. The name of the overall project has been changed to "Park 51." When I first checked out the Park 51 website, I had the impression that the mosque would be operated as a separate entity and would be called "Cordoba House." As of today (August 23) the website says that the mosque has "yet to be named." However, there are other portions of the website that expressly refer to "Cordoba House," which causes some confusion (which will be briefly addressed in a subsequent section). In any event, the website does make it clear that the mosque will be a separately run non-profit.

With that in mind, here's what Newt said right after his third bullshit statement:

If the people behind the Cordoba House were serious about religious toleration, they would be imploring the Saudis, as fellow Muslims, to immediately open up Mecca to all and immediately announce their intention to allow non-Muslim houses of worship in the Kingdom. They should be asked by the news media if they would be willing to lead such a campaign.

Newt's statements about toleration are as worthless as his other statements.

As I discussed in the previous post, any efforts to get Saudi Arabia to permit any religion other than Islam are pointless. You know, Newt has undergraduate, master's, and PhD degrees in history, so one would think that he could have availed himself of the history of Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis, meaning that he would have had sense enough not to make these ridiculous statements about Saudi Arabia allowing non-Muslim houses of worship. Apparently, he was too lazy to do even a little bit of research.

Anyway, here is another example of Newt trying to make American religious freedom in some way dependent on religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. That is truly stupid since we already have religious freedom under our American constitution.

Newt is so damn clueless.

I considered titling this section after a famous running bit from Dan Ackroyd on SNL back in the day...Anyhoo...

Newt's statements are utterly ignorant. The statements utterly fail to take into account the fact that there are different sects within Islam. Most people now are aware of the two main sects, Sunni and Shia. What they might not know is that there are sects within those sects. For purposes of this post, I will repeat something I said earlier, namely that one of the Sunni sects is Wahhabism, which is an extremely fundamentalist and rigid form of Sunni Islam. Another rigid and fundamentalist Sunni sect is Salafism. There is a similarity and relation between Salafism and Wahhabism, but I feel I do not know enough to elaborate on that. However, I think it is safe to say that these two sects dominate in Saudi Arabia, meaning that Saudi Arabia is not inclined to do anything that anyone or any group suggests that varies from them in any way. Which brings me to a third major sect within Islam, the Sufis.

Rudimentary (at best) description of Sufism

Here is a synopsis of Sufis based on my own study over the years. The Sufis are the poets and mystics of Islam. Sufis are moderates. Sufis are non-violent. Sufis are not dogmatic. Sufis are tolerant of other religions. Indeed, Sufis are open to seeking knowledge and understanding from other religions. Because of these characteristics, Sufis are disliked and criticized by some other Muslims (notably hardliners like Salafis, Wahhabis, and the Taliban). Sufis have been and still are persecuted by some other Muslims.

Now here's some descriptions of Sufis for the wingers out there. These descriptions were written by Stephen Schwartz and appeared in The Weekly Standard, one of the mainstays of the right wing media. The first description comes from "Getting to Know the Sufis," published in February 2005:

Where the Wahhabis insist that there is only one, monolithic, authentic Islam (theirs), the Sufis express their faith through hundreds of different orders and communities around the globe, none pretending to an exclusive hold on truth. Sufis may be either Sunni or Shia; some would claim to have transcended the difference. Throughout its 1,200-year history, Sufism has rested on a spiritual foundation of love for the creator and creation, which implies the cultivation of mercy and compassion toward all human beings. These principles are expressed in esoteric teachings imparted through formal instruction.

*******

The history of Sufism is filled with examples of interfaith fusion, in contrast with the rigid separatism of the Islamic fundamentalists. Balkan and Turkish Sufis share holy sites with Christians. Central Asian Sufis preserve traditions inherited from shamans and Buddhists. Sufis in French-speaking West Africa adapt local customs, and those in Eastern Turkestan borrow from Chinese traditions such as Confucianism and Taoism, as well as martial arts. In the Balkans, Turkey, and Central Asia, Sufis have accepted secularism as a bulwark against religious intolerance and the monopolization of religious opinion by clerics.

In an August 9, 2010, blog post, Schwartz and Irfan al-Alawi described the the persecution suffered by Sufis. The post began by describing the July 1, 2010, terrorist attack on a Sufi shrine in Pakistan which killed 45 and injured 175 and went on to describe other violent attacks on Sufis the last few years. Regarding the July bombing, the writers stated

The slayings have been blamed on al Qaeda and its Taliban allies.

As adherents to Saudi-financed Wahhabism and the similar South Asian Deobandi form of Muslim fundamentalism, the terrorists have long proclaimed their hatred of the Sufis[.]

And why am I discussing Sufis? Two reasons: 1) Sufis are not radical extremists. The radical Islamic extremists basically despise the Sufis. 2) The Muslims seeking to build and use Park 51 and Cordoba House are Sufis.

Newt's ignorant, broad statements fail to reflect any of these facts. His statements at the least imply that all Muslims (and all Muslim sects) come within the purview of "These Islamists" that he contends are trying to make America submit. Forcing people to submit is definitely not the Sufi way, and if Newt would bother to do even a little bit of study about Sufism, he would know that.

Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East

Newt and his apologists surely would argue that everything I described indicates that Sufis are indeed the group that should lead a campaign for religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. Well, Sufis are taking some steps to counter rigid religious fundamentalism in the Middle East. To be honest, this is a subject of which I knew nothing before doing research for this post, and based on what I have found, I cannot at this time adequately address the topic. Nonetheless, I will point out a portion of Sufi efforts in this regard.

Sufis in the Middle East are establishing satellite television channels to reach Sufi audiences and teach others about Sufism. As stated in this January 27, 2010, article,

A coalition of Sufi organisations is preparing to launch Egypt’s first Sufi-themed satellite television station before the end of the year.

The channel’s principal organisers, the Al Azmiyah tariqah, or “path”, said the station would be the fourth in the Middle East to identify specifically with Sufi Islamic thought.

Ala’ Abu al Azayim, the sheikh of the Al Azmiyah tariqah, said he hoped the station, which he plans to name Al Sufiya Wa Atasawaf (Sufis and Sufism), will help propagate Sufism’s moderate conception of Islam.

But he also envisions it as an ideological foil to the dozens of conservative Salafi satellite channels that compete for viewers across the region – stations that Mr al Azayim said routinely attack Sufi thought, pollute the practice of Islam with an ultra-conservative ideology and defame the religion’s reputation throughout the world.

The article also points out that many of the Salafi satellite channels are Saudi-funded. And, according to this article, another Sufi satellite channel is being funded by Saudi businessmen. Notice that this second article is very dismissive and critical of Sufism, exemplified by the author's statement that " In fact I pity the forthcoming Sufi channel[.]"

As shown above, Sufis already practice religious tolerance and respect for other faiths AND they are engaging in activities to counter the efforts of extreme fundamentalism--even in Saudi Arabia. In other words, Sufis are already doing the things that Newt thinks they are not and must do before Americans should show them any tolerance.

Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance via Park 51

Now I want to focus on what we might expect from Park 51 and Cordoba House.

The Park 51 website describes the project's Vision as follows:

Park51 will be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture, education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and a deep respect for our planet. Park51 will join New York to the world, offering a welcoming community center with multiple points of entry.

With world-class facilities, a global scope and strong local roots, Park 51 will offer a friendly and accessible platform for conversations across our identities.

As for the mosque, Park 51 says that it will be "open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community." Another portion of the website says "Intended to operate as a separate 501(c)(3), the mosque will be a welcoming prayer space accessible to Park51 members as well as all New Yorkers." (emphasis added). Thus, it appears that the mosque will be open to non-Muslims. That certainly seems religiously tolerant to me.

It also seems clear that the rest of Park 51 will be open to all people. Park 51's Mission statement includes the following:

• Uphold respect for the diversity of expression and ideas between all people
• Cultivate and embrace neighborly relations between all New Yorkers, fostering a spirit of civic participation and an awareness of common needs and opportunities
• Encourage open discussion and dialogue on issues of relevance to New Yorkers, Americans and the international reality of our interconnected planet

Elsewhere on the website it is stated that

At a time of economic hardship, Park51 will constitute an investment of over $100 million of infrastructure in lower Manhattan, creating over 150 full-time jobs and over 500 part-time jobs, and providing much needed space, open to all, for community activities, health and wellness, arts and culture and personal and professional development.

(emphasis added). Also, Park 51 will have a 23-member board of directors, and "The Board will not be limited by religion or region."

Moreover, in accordance with what I said above about Sufis being open to other religions, "Cordoba House, under the direction of Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf, will represent a multifaith programming cluster within Park51." What the website does not make clear is whether "Cordoba House" will be an actual entity or facility within Park 51. Specifically, it is still not clear to me whether the mosque is going to be called "Cordoba House." In any event, it appears that multifaith activities are going to be part of Park 51.

In short, Park 51 has declared that it will be open to all people, regardless of religion, and will have programs and activities that allow ideas and beliefs of other religions to be expressed therein.

Maybe that's not good enough for Newt, but it if Park 51 carries through on its declarations, the facility will certainly exemplify religious tolerance.

Sufi efforts to promote religious tolerance via the Imam of Park 51

The Imam (spiritual leader and teacher) of Park 51 will be Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. There is currently plenty of info about him on the internet, but I will provide links to three bios: Wikipedia; the Cordoba Initiative; and the American Society for Muslim Advancement. The Wikipedia page presents some of the criticisms of Rauf. He has addressed some of those criticisms (and others specifically related to Park 51) in a FAQ page on the Cordoba Initiative website. I am not going to discuss those criticisms here, but will do so in a subsequent post.

What I want to focus on in this post is Rauf's past efforts regarding religious tolerance. This post at TPM Muckraker provides a nice summary of Rauf's work with the Bush administration (that's right, Bush) to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East and at home. What I find most interesting is that when Bush was President, there were no complaints about Rauf being some sort of radical or Islamic extremist, yet now that is exactly what opponents of Park 51 are calling him.

NOTE: Stephen Schwartz wrote an August 4, 2010, article examing Rauf's possible ties to people who might be considered radicals. In my opinion, the article does little to show that Rauf is a radical in contravention to what his work described herein shows. However, in the interest of fairness, I felt I should mention and link to Schwartz's article.

Rauf has also promoted religious tolerance in this country, and part of his efforts have occurred through his position of Imam of Masjid Al-Farah, the mosque which is about 12 blocks from Ground Zero. I will share two accounts from people who have participated in activities with Rauf while he has been the Imam of Masjid Al-Farah. The first account comes from an August 19, 2010, column by Brad Gooch, a contributor to The Daily Beast:

I first met Feisal Rauf in the spring of 2000, while working on my book Godtalk: Travels in Spiritual America. I wished to write a chapter on Islam in New York City, and a friend took me to a lecture Feisal was giving on his new book, Islam: A Sacred Law, subtitled What Every Muslim Should Know About Shariah. (I learned that night what many screaming heads have not yet—there are different schools of Islamic law, as there are denominations in Christianity, and Feisal is part of an extremely liberal one.) The event was in the basement of a (since vanished) Sufi bookstore on West Broadway. Next door was the Masjid Al-Farah, where I began to attend his Friday talks...I interviewed Feisal at a nearby café. Eventually, he invited me to attend a meditation group in Sufism—the mystical branch of Islam—he led Friday nights at the Upper West Side apartment he shared with his wife Daisy Khan. I frequented the group over four months.

*******

His weekly prayer group was a Noah’s ark (the Koran has Noah, too), including the grandson of a Syrian president; a Jewish librarian; a Roman Catholic Latina; an African-American radio commentator.

This shows that Rauf has opened his door to non-Muslims in this country. The second account is a comment to a post on the Huffington Post:

I have been to the mosque many times. It is a supremely peaceful place attended by loving, introspective people only. There is no anti-Christian, anti-American, or hateful talk or activity of any kind going on there, only loving devotion and spirituality. Men and women of all nationalities pray there side by side. In addition, the mosque and associated buildings have often been host to spiritual teachers, artists, musicians, and other presenters from many traditions including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and more.

Truth be told, the Masjid Al-Farah is the kind of mosque that radical Islamists and all zealots -- religious or otherwise -- hate, because it is a place that promotes love, pluralism and tolerance. So it is my opinion, based on first-hand experience of this Imam his previous position, that the building of Cordoba House--if it is to be anything like Masjid Al-Farah--is something that stands in direct opposition to terrorism and Islamist radicalism.

What more needs to be said?

Conclusion

Newt's statements continue his position that "until Saudi Arabia has religious freedom, America is going to restrict its religious freedom." And thus he continues to be a douchebag.

His statements display an abject ignorance of history and the doctrinal differences within Islam. He is also ignorant of the fact that the Muslims seeking to build Park 51 are Sufis, and he shows that he knows nothing about Sufis.

The declarations of Park 51 and the actions of Sufis in general and Imam Rauf in particular show that they are indeed already working for religious tolerance.

In short, Newt's fourth set of statements is complete bullshit.

Newt Gingrich on the NYC mosque

Overview

Just as I was updating my previous criticism of Newt, I discovered that he had said more things for which he deserves criticism, and that would be what he has said about the Muslim community center and mosque scheduled to be built a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City.

I will have plenty to say about that general topic in the next few days, but what I will say next will give you a good idea of my views...Newt Gingrich is so full of shit. His statements about the Muslim community center and mosque are complete bullshit and show what a bombastic, self-serving douchebag he is.

Too strong to start? Well, too bad.

This will be the first of three posts on Newt's dumbass statements on this matter.

Newt's first bullshit statement

Let's start with this gem from Newt:

There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

Where to start? There are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. And here's why:

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy in which Islam is the official religion. Although no law requires citizens or passport holders to be Muslim, almost all citizens are Muslims. Proselytizing by non-Muslims is illegal, and conversion by Muslims to another religion (apostasy) carries the death penalty, although there have been no confirmed reports of executions for apostasy in recent years.

In other words, "Religious freedom [in Saudi Arabia] is virtually non-existent." And that is not going to change. You see, the ruling family in that Islamic theocracy, the House of Saud, has long had a more than close relationship to the Wahhabis, the extremely fundamentalist Sunni Islamic sect. As stated in this Frontline timeline,

1744--The Holy Alliance

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of "Wahhabism," an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to "pure" Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab's austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab's followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. But in 1818, forces of the Ottoman Empire sack the capital, Riyadh, and execute many of the religious and political leaders. Over the next eighty years the Al Saud attempt to reestablish their rule on the Arabian Peninsula without success.

1902--Abd al-Aziz and the Ikhwan

In 1902, a direct descendent of Muhammad ibn Saud, twenty-year-old Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, rides out of the desert with 60 of his brothers and cousins to restore the rule of Al Saud. He captures Riyadh, the ancient capital of the Saudi kingdom, but to conquer all of the Arabian Peninsula, he seeks the help of nomadic Bedouins, the Ikhwan, or Muslim brothers. Renowned warriors, the Ikhwan are also fervent Wahhabi Islamic puritans who want to spread their form of Islam throughout the Middle East.

1924-25--Abd al-Aziz Captures Mecca and Medina, Crushes the Ikhwan

With the Ikhwan by his side, Abd al-Aziz captures province after province of the vast desert. He captures Mecca in 1924 and Medina in 1925, becoming the ruler of the Two Holy Cities of Islam.

*******

1932--The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud declares himself king and gives his name to the country: Saudi Arabia.

In other words, the House of Saud gained power and created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia because of the alliance with and assistance of Wahhabis. And that alliance continues today. Put another way, if the House of Saud were to try to end this alliance, the House of Saud would likely no longer rule. The Wahhabis will never want other religions in Saudi Arabia, and that means the House of Saud will never want other religions in Saudi Arabia. Freedom of religion is not going to exist in Saudi Arabia.

Consequently, Gingrich's statements are utterly meaningless.

Even if there was any possibility of religious freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, Newt's statement would not do anything to help cause that. You see, there are already lots of mosques all over America (due to the fact that we already have freedom of religion). So why would the House of Saud want to end its autocratic grip on religion just so one, and only one, more mosque could be built in America? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And there is another reason why Newt's statement makes no sense. Essentially he is saying "O.K., Saudi Arabia. Until you have some religious freedom, we are going to restrict our freedom of religion."

What a douchebag.

Newt's second bullshit statement

Right after his first bullshit statement Newt said this:

The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

I'll say it again: We already have freedom of religion. That means that any religion in this country can make just about any kind of demands it wants. It does NOT, however, mean that we as a country have to submit to those demands. For instance, one religion could demand that we as a country restrict our freedom of religion. I doubt seriously that we as a nation would submit to such a demand. I'm not so sure about Newt. After all, as shown above, he has already shown that he is willing to restrict freedom of religion in the case of the Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero. One could make the argument that it seems that Newt is implying that we as Americans are not strong enough to stand up to demands from specific religions. Oh why does Newt hate America by thinking we are weak?

Newt is the one using a double standard here. By tying his "double standard" claim to the Muslim community center and mosque, he is saying that America has freedom of religion--but that the group of Muslims who want to build the community center and mosque do not have complete religious freedom. So, Newt is saying there is one standard for everyone in America--except these Muslims in New York City.

Again, what a douchebag.

Newt's third bullshit statement

From the same screed:

Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" are arrogantly dishonest. They ignore the fact that more than 100 mosques already exist in New York City. Meanwhile, there are no churches or synagogues in all of Saudi Arabia. In fact no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca.

(emphasis in original). Newt is basically right on the facts. There are numerous mosques in NYC (in fact there is one just a few blocks from Ground Zero). And non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca.

And those facts have absolutely NO bearing on freedom of religion in THIS country. Again, we already have freedom of religion here. What does or does not happen in Saudi Arabia does NOT change that fact. Thus, for Newt's statement to make any sense at all, his term "Those Islamists" would have to apply to the Muslims in New York City that are seeking to build and use the proposed community center and mosque. I'd wager that many of those people are not Saudis but rather Muslim-Americans. And as Muslim-Americans, they are guaranteed freedom of religion because that's the way we roll in America. The lives and rights of Muslim-Americans are not determined by the House of Saud or Wahhabis. They are determined by American laws and the American Constitution.

Let me put this another way. The issue is not religious toleration around the world. The issue is religious toleration in THIS country. And THIS country is the ONLY country to determine that issue. What happens in Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to the right of Americans to religious freedom. Apparently Newt thinks that actions by other countries should have some influence on what we do here.

Again, what a douchebag.

As I said in my previous post, this whole matter is really about the First Amendment and American freedom of religion. Newt's statements focus on circumstances in another country which cannot possibly have an effect on our Constitutional rights. Newt's statements do not support the First Amendment right of religious freedom--his statements seek to limit that freedom by suggesting that it is dependent in some way on foreign countries and by utilizing a double standard.

And I'm just getting started on Newtie...

The so-called "Ground Zero mosque"

I will be publishing several posts on this matter, and before I do I thought I should give a summary of my views.

My opinion is based on the First Amendment and the right of religious freedom in this country. Any other basis for any position on this matter is, in my opinion, misguided.

The group seeking to build the proposed Muslim community center and mosque should be allowed to proceed with the project.

This does not mean that I am in total agreement with that group. Personally, based on my view of the First Amendment and my beliefs in general, I have no problem with the project or its location. However, I believe the group should have chosen a different location. I believe that their stated goal of outreach and bridging gaps between religions is truly one of their goals, but the group seems to have underestimated the intensity of reaction to the location. Such reaction--which was very foreseeable--only gives the group an additional major obstacle to overcome in achieving its goal. Its task would be difficult under the best of circumstances, and instead of trying to avoid complicating circumstances, it chose to create one.

That basic reaction--that the project is simply too close to Ground Zero--is, in my opinion, understandable and legitimate. However, the freedom of religion in America established by the First Amendment should take priority over that reaction. Otherwise, one of the foundations upon which this country has been built will be damaged, and that damage could increase.

I am in strong disagreement with the likes of Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and those that have similar views.

I will be stating my own views in the next series of posts. I will begin with my reaction to the rantings of Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich--what a swell guy! (revisited)

Back in December 2006, I wrote a series of posts showing in detail that Newt Gingrich is anything but a swell guy. I should really be more direct...Newt Gingrich is a hypocritical jackass--among other things. Don't believe me? Go to the index for this blog, scroll down to "Gingrich, Newt," click on the links, and read for yourself.

So why revisit this subject now? Well, Newt seems to be once again contemplating a White House run, so anything discussing his utter lack of character and integrity is relevant. Also, some new information became public this week in the form of a profile in the September issue of Esquire magazine. That profile includes information I did not have when I wrote my series, a fact that prompted me to go back and review my previous research, and all of that convinced me an update is warranted.

Family man revisited

Before we get to the updated material, let's do a quick review. If you want more details, then read this post. In the meantime, here is the Readers Digest version:

• Wife #1, Jackie, was married to Newt for about 18.5 years. He had numerous affairs while married to Jackie. He walked out on her in the spring of 1980. Then, as she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, Newt went into her room and insisted on discussing the terms of their pending divorce (for which he filed).
• One of the affairs was with the woman who became Wife #2, Marianne. They got married six months after Newt's divorce from Jackie was final. This marriage lasted 18 years, but during the last 6, Newt was having an affair with the woman who would become Wife #3. Newt told Marianne he wanted a divorce via telephone while she was visiting her mother.

In my previous post, I included many more sordid details, and back then I didn't think there could be any more information that would make Newt look like an even bigger ass.

I was wrong.

And before any Newt apologists get cranked up, I will point out that a good deal of this new information comes from inside sources, most notably Jackie and Marianne. In addition to the Esquire profile (written by John H. Richardson), I will include some info from sources I previously used, especially a 1995 Vanity Fair article by Gail Sheehy.

Here's a timeline for the end of Newt's first marriage and the start of his second:

• Newt met Marianne in January 1980.
• Newt walked out on Jackie (and their two daughters) in April 1980.
• Newt asked Marianne to marry him within weeks of meeting her.
  
• Do the math--Newt proposed to Marianne while still married to Jackie.
• Jackie, who was battling uterine cancer, had her third surgery in September 1980. The day after her surgery Newt went into her hospital room and insisted on discussing the terms of divorce.
• By October, Newt was refusing to pay alimony or child support. Jackie had to get a court order to get Newt to pay an electric bill.
  
• The divorce from Jackie was finalized in February 1981.
• Newt and Marianne got married six months later.

Now let's move on to the transition from Wife #2 to Wife #3, Callista Bisek. As noted above, Newt had an affair with Callista for the last six years of his marriage to Marianne.

It is true that Newt told Marianne he wanted a divorce over the phone, and I previously cited that as pretty much a douchebag move, but in the Esquire profile, Marianne reveals that when Newt called he asked that they talk in person, but Marianne insisted on talking over the phone right then. I did not know that previously. I also did not know that not long before that phone call, Marianne was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. So I have to apologize to Newt for implying that he was a douchebag for the phone thing, but I get to call him a douchebag for telling his first two wives he wanted a divorce after they started fighting major illnesses.

And I get to call him a douchebag for asking Bisek to marry him before he had even told Marianne he wanted a divorce (just like he did in his first marriage).

And I get to call him an even bigger douchebag because of something else he did after he revealed his affair with Bisek. Newt Gingrich actually asked Marianne to tolerate the affair. Not only that, but he made that request when he returned from giving a speech praising compassion and family values! What a douchebag!

As described in Esquire,

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"

I will discuss Newt's response later, but for now I will say Marianne's question highlights one of my biggest problems with Newt, namely that he is a huge hypocrite.

And Newt did some screwy things during the divorce proceedings. Here's the description from Esquire:

When they got to court, Gingrich refused to cooperate with basic discovery. Marianne and her lawyer knew from a Washington Post gossip column that Gingrich had bought Bisek a $450 bottle of wine, for example, but he refused to provide receipts or answer any other questions about their relationship.

Then Gingrich made a baffling move. Because Bisek had refused to be deposed by Marianne's attorney, Newt had his own attorney depose her, after which the attorney held a press conference and announced that she had confessed to a six-year affair with Gingrich.

In his first divorce, he refused to pay child support and had to be ordered by the court to pay the electric bill for his wife and children. In his second divorce, he refused to answer any questions about his six-year affair. So why would he depose her, then have a press conference to admit the 6-year affair? The reason was related to his request for Marianne's "tolerance." Since Marianne was not going to tolerate the affair, Newt was going to try to make it look like that's what she actually did. It turns out that Newt "had also told the press that he and Marianne had an understanding." Marianne flatly denied that to Esquire.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking...All of that bad behavior was in the past. There's no evidence that Newt has been engaging in such douchebaggery since he married Wife #3. I have to admit that. However, that does not mean Newt has left behind all of his past behavior. Part of what Newt's past shows is a callous disregard for women. The Esquire profile shows an example of this in the present day.

In the interview with Newt done for the profile, he twice mentioned being like a four-year old child:

"There's a large part of me that's four years old," he tells you. "I wake up in the morning and I know that somewhere there's a cookie. I don't know where it is but I know it's mine and I have to go find it. That's how I live my life.

*******

"Callista and I kid that I'm four and she's five and therefore she gets to be in charge, because the difference between four and five is a lot."

Here's what happened when Richardson told Marianne about these comments:

Her eyes go wide when she hears his line about being four to Callista's five. "You know where that line came from? Me. That's my line. That's what I told him."

She pauses for a moment, turning it over in her mind. Then she shakes her head in wonder. "I'm sorry, that's so freaky."

That's one way to describe it. "Pathetic" is another way. Being unfaithful to Marianne for at least six years wasn't enough. Asking her to tolerate the affair wasn't enough. Lying to the media that she knew about and was OK with the affair wasn't enough. Newt felt it was necessary to describe himself and his current wife with comments that came from Marianne to describe her marriage to Newt. What a douchebag.

Hypocrisy is his SOP.

Part 6 of my previous series showed that as of December 2006, hypocrisy was Newt's SOP (standard operating procedure). One of the examples I focused on was financing and fund raising. Part 6 was based to a degree on Part 2. Together those two posts discussed how Gingrich built his early career and success on attacking corruption caused by money and special interests and then engaged in the same conduct he was attacking. In an interview, Fred Wertheimer explained what Newt did before and after he became Speaker.

He attacked the House as a corrupt institution. He brought ethics charges. He constantly attacked the legitimacy of the institution. At the same time, he built a financial empire based on special interest and private influence money. He did everything he could to block the reforms, the serious reforms of the system that were undertaken. And now of course he's the king of this corrupt system.

*******

Somehow the same issue that had been central to Newt Gingrich's argument throughout his career in the minority--that this was a corrupt system, that PACs were a grotesque feature in the system, that money politics was driving out and defeating citizen politicians--somehow not a word about this was included in the Contract With America.

As shown in Parts 2 and 6, Wertheimer showed that 1) before he became Speaker, Gingrich tried to shut down the "soft money" and PACs; 2) during this time Gingrich was building a political machine fueled by soft money and PACs; and 3) once he became Speaker, he took steps to preserve the very system he had publicly condemned as corrupt.

Newt is basically doing the same thing now. The Esquire profile explains in detail how Gingrich is raising money. A primary way is through his "political advocacy group," American Solutions, which is a "527" organization. In the past, individual politicians have raised money through political action committees, or PACs. However, PACs are limited in terms of how much money they can accept from donors and they cannot take contributions from corporations. One objective of such restrictions is the prevention of special interests from unduly influencing a politician. 527 organizations face none of those restrictions. 527s can accept unlimited contributions from anywhere as long as the 527 does not promote a specific candidate.

Basically, Newt is able to raise unlimited amounts of cash through American Solutions and use that cash to advance his own interests. As Esquire put it, "American Solutions [is] the biggest political-advocacy group in America today, with an expansive issues agenda that just happens to advance the political fortunes of Newt Gingrich." See, Newt has not been an elected official for 12 years, and he is not currently running for any office, so raising money and spending it on himself does not violate the letter of the law.

That's clever, but it presents a big problem and still shows that Newt is a huge hypocrite. I will explain this after discussing another group run by Newt.

Another organization Newt uses to raise money is the Center for Health Transformation, which "is a for-profit outfit that charges big health insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield up to $200,000 a year for access to the mind of Newt Gingrich." Here's a list of the companies that have paid for such access. And since CHT is not even a political advocacy group, it faces no restrictions on fund raising and spending. Thus, it pretty much exists as another tool to advance Newt's personal agenda and interests.

And apparently part of Newt's agenda is taking credit for things he has not done, particularly when it comes to CHT. As Richardson reveals in the Esquire profile:

On its Web site, it describes its work in Georgia as a model for all its efforts and says the "cornerstone" of its work is a group called Bridges to Excellence. But CHT "had zero role in creating Bridges to Excellence," says François de Brantes, the group's CEO. CHT helped with organization for one year and hasn't been associated with them since 2008. The CHT Web site also singles out the "Healthy Georgia Diabetes and Obesity Project" as its major diabetes effort, but that was news to the American Diabetes Association. "We were not able to find any information about this," says the ADA's communications director, Colleen Fogarty. "The person that was in contact with them is no longer here."

Now, back to why all this is a big problem and shows Newt's never-ending hypocrisy. This Esquire excerpt frames the issue nicely:

[CHT] is not a registered lobby. Neither is American Solutions. So if Gingrich talks to a politician about energy policy while energy legislation is pending, he's just an intellectual exploring ideas. And he can go on TV and/or write articles without declaring his financial interest in pending legislation. One of Gingrich's former advisors told The Washington Post that he's "making more money than he ever thought possible, and doesn't have to tell everybody where it's coming from."

So, when Newt speaks (publicly or behind closed doors) about a given issue and proposed course of action, there is the real possibility that his views have been bought and paid for by some corporation or special interest. In other words, although he is no longer technically breaking any laws or rules, he is nonetheless engaging in the same kind of corruption he attacked in his political career.

Do you want a President who has been financed by special interests? Do you want a President who is potentially beholden to those special interests? Do you want a President who has been and still is a habitual hypocrite? If so, then Newt's your man.

Ego and personality revisited

And that brings us to the last section of this post. Part 5 of my previous series on Newt was about his ego and personality, and judging from the Esquire profile, nothing has changed. Part 5 shows that Newt has an enormous ego and ambition and yet utterly lacks the skills to be a leader.

As for his ego, I said back in December 2006 that Newt felt he was on a mission from God, and he still believes that. The Esquire profile closes with the question of whether Newt will run 2012.

One thing is certain — Newt Gingrich loves the question. "That's up to God and the American people," he tells you, in the serene tone of a man who already knows what God thinks.

You see, Newt is still trying to show that it is not that he wants to be President, but rather that he has to be President because God and the American people have ordained it. In Part 5, I explained how Newt was trying to start his own "draft Newt" movement. As he told Fortune magazine for a November 21, 2006, article: "I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." And he is still spouting this bullshit today. As he told Richardson for Esquire,

I see myself as a citizen leader trying to understand three things:
• What the country has to do to be successful.
• How you would communicate that to the American people so they would let you do it.
• And then how you'd actually implement it if they gave you permission to do it.

Newt is now trying to say that he is simply trying to figure what needs to be done for the good of the country, but then he goes and shows that he feels he already knows what is good for the country--and that is for him to be President. I contend that Newt feels he has already figured out what the country should be doing. Check out his various websites and his books and anything he has written or said for evidence of my contention. And now he is simply trying to get the American people to insist that he be our leader. Anyone who thinks otherwise should feel free to explain why I am wrong, but choose your words carefully.

The only thing Newt really wants to figure out is how to get what he wants. That is his priority. That was the case when I wrote Part 5 in December 2006, and it is still true today. Mickey Edwards was in the House from 1977 to 1993. He rose to be one of the Republican leaders in the House during his tenure (chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, a member of both the House Appropriations and Budget committees, and ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations). That means he knows Gingrich. Here's what Edwards said about Newt in the Esquire profile:

"I've known Newt now for thirty years almost," says former congressman Mickey Edwards. "But I wouldn't be able to describe what his real principles are. I never felt that he had any sort of a real compass about what he believed except for the pursuit of power."

So, Newt still thinks that God His ownself wants Newt to be President, and he is still determined to start his own draft movement so that his divine destiny will be fulfilled. What a douchebag.

I noted in Part 5 that Gingrich has been described as "a psychodrama living out a fantasy." And the person who provided that description was...wait for it...Newt.

As for the rest of his personality, read the Sheehy Vanity Fair article and you will see that I went easy on Newt in Part 5. Then read the Esquire profile and ask yourself if you think Newt has the emotional and psychological makeup to be President. I am not going to discuss any of those specifics here. You can read them for yourself.

Instead, I will close with by discussing Newt's answer to Marianne's question about the speech he gave on family values after he revealed his 6-year affair with Bisek. The question was "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?" Here was Newt's response:

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

Anyone who might want to claim that Newt is not a hypocrite should really--really--rethink that.

And there are clues that he still feels this way today. Go back and look at what he said in Esquire about being a "citizen leader." Go back and look at what he has said about his "draft Newt" idea. Newt always talks about his ideas. According to him, his ideas are so great that they must be implemented. He also seems to think that since they are his ideas he is the only person for that job. As far as I am concerned, that shows that he doesn't think that his own character is relevant to the equation. He's been chosen by God, you see, so anything he does is justified. Newt thinks he does not have to answer to anybody. Basically, he thinks that everybody should do what he says, but he is not required to practice what he preaches. Someone who thinks that way is hypocritical. When that hypocrisy is then combined with a self-created divine appointment and a desire for power, that someone becomes dangerous.

And there is Newt Gingrich in a nutshell.

America's national security and intelligence revisted--Part 1 of "Top Secret America"

Overview

The first article in "Top Secret America" is "A hidden world, growing beyond control." Here's the lead paragraph:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

And this is four years after I said that "As a result of the Homeland Security Act and creation of DHS, the federal bureaucracy is a big mess which has yet to be sorted out and which has resulted in further confusion and red tape and inefficiency and thus hurt efforts in the war on terror."

As I said in my previous post, the series by the Post proves my earlier conclusion correct but also shows that the mess has grown far bigger than I imagined. This post addresses matters raised in "A hidden world, growing beyond control," but the article contains much more detail than this post and reveals problems I am not going to address here. Thus, I urge everyone to read the article.

What should become apparent--if not in this post then certainly in the articles in the Washington Post--is that while there are individual flaws and problems in the system, they all synergize into one huge mess where any one problem causes and/or exacerbates other problems. Nevertheless, I am going to attempt to address some of the problems separately.

The intelligence community has been supersized.

Actually, my previous statement about DHS and the bureaucracy is not accurate because it is so limited in scope. The intelligence apparatus has expanded so much that DHS is but one piece of a large, irregular puzzle. Let's start with the largeness. As reported by the Post,

• DHS, established in late 2002, now has 230,000 employees, making it the third largest federal agency (after the Departments of Defense and Veteran Affairs).
• 854,000 people have "top secret" security clearances. NOTE: In the U.S. government, there are three basic levels of security clearance, with "top secret" being the highest, followed by "secret" and "confidential." "Top secret" applies to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. And a mere 854,000 people have access to such information. Wow.
• "In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space."
• "In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11. Each has required more people, and those people have required more administrative and logistic support: phone operators, secretaries, librarians, architects, carpenters, construction workers, air-conditioning mechanics and, because of where they work, even janitors with top-secret clearances."
• "Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States."
• The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was created in 2005, and its purpose was to oversee and coordinate the ever-growing intelligence community (more on ODNI to follow). When it opened, ODNI had 11 people with offices in a secure vault with tiny rooms. One year later, ODNI took up two floors in an office building. In spring of 2008, ODNI moved into a 7-story huge office complex it shares with the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC).

Speaking of the current ODNI location, the complex is called Liberty Crossing, and here is a picture.


So, in three years, ODNI went from one vault with small rooms to this.

"A hidden world, growing beyond control" has plenty more facts regarding the sheer size of the intelligence community. The article--and some other sources--also show how irregular and jumbled the puzzle is.

WARNING: Reading the rest of this post presents a greater than zero chance of causing a severe case of tired head.

What in the wide, wide world of intelligence is a goin' on here?

NOTE: It is my belief that quoting or paraphrasing Slim Pickens is an inherently good thing.

As noted by the Post, after 9-11, the lines of responsibility and mission started to blur, so pursuant to the recommendation of the 9-11 Commission, Congress and the Bush administration created the ODNI. The idea was to establish an authority to oversee, manage, and control the entire intelligence apparatus. The previous discussion about how big the intelligence community has become should give an idea as to the enormity of the task given to ODNI. For details of ODNI's mission and purpose, check out this page on the ODNI website and the ODNI Fact Sheet.

Rather than setting out the mission and objectives stated in those sources, I choose instead to convey the difficulty of the ODNI's job by listing some of the organizations that ODNI is supposed to manage and coordinate. As stated in the ODNI Fact Sheet, "The DNI oversees a 17-element Intelligence Community[.]" Here are those 17 elements:

• Central Intelligence Agency
• Defense Intelligence Agency
• Department of Energy (Office of Intelligence & Counterintelligence)
• Department of Homeland Security (Office of Intelligence & Analysis)
• Department of State (Bureau of Intelligence & Research)
• Department of Treasury (Office of Intelligence & Analysis)
• Drug Enforcement Administration (Office of National Security Intelligence)
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (National Security Branch)
• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
• National Reconnaissance Office
• National Security Agency/Central Security Service
• United States Air Force
• United States Army
• United States Coast Guard
• United States Marine Corps
• United States Navy

Notice that ODNI is supposed to oversee and manage only one protion of some of these groups. That means that these portions are supposed to be managed by their own organization (for instance, the DIA is managed by the Defense Department) AND by ODNI. This gives me visions of TPS Reports, memos, and multiple bosses. But seriously, who do you think the people working in these "portions" are going to follow--ODNI or their immediate bosses within their own organizations? Notice also that ODNI is supposed to oversee and manage part of DHS. So, our government first added a level of bureucracy by creating DHS--which was supposed to oversee and manage--and then our government decided that the original solution had to be overseen and managed by another office, and that simply added another layer to the bureacracy. Getting back to the puzzle analogy, the puzzle already had many pieces, but instead of trying to put them all together, we decided that the way to put the puzzle together was to add more pieces.

And it is obvious that this 17-member Intelligence Community does not include all the "1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence." So who is supposed to oversee and, manage, and coordinate all those organizations and companies?

Apparently, despite the creation of DHS and ODNI, the answer to the question is "no one." This will be discussed later. Here's a scary excerpt from the Post:

Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department's most sensitive programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered.

"I'm not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities," he said in an interview. "The complexity of this system defies description."

Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department.

Given the massive size of the intelligence and national security apparatus and what I consider to be the obvious inability of ODNI (or any one else) to control it, there simply have to be problems with the system. One of those problems is redundancy to an extreme. Some redunancy is good. It can provide corroboration, and it can make sure that a given job is thoroughly done. However, what we have in our intelligence system now goes way beyond ridiculous. Included in the opening bullet points of the Post article is the following:

Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

Remember that because I will be writing another post about tracking terrorist money...

Here's one description of the redundancy problem:

The problem with many intelligence reports, say officers who read them, is that they simply re-slice the same facts already in circulation. "It's the soccer ball syndrome. Something happens, and they want to rush to cover it," said Richard H. Immerman, who was the ODNI's assistant deputy director of national intelligence for analytic integrity and standards until early 2009. "I saw tremendous overlap."

This redundancy has already resulted in real world failures. One of those was the shooting spree that took place at Ft. Hood. The shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, had trained at Walter Reed Hospital, where he had warned his "commanders that they should allow Muslims to leave the Army or risk 'adverse events.' He had also exchanged e-mails with a well-known radical cleric in Yemen being monitored by U.S. intelligence." And yet the Army unit charged with counterintelligence investigations within the Army knew nothing about any of this because the unit was busy assessing general terrorist affiliations in the United States--a job lready being done by DHS and 106 Joint Terrorism Task Forces in the FBI. The Army unit's reports "'didn't tell us anything we didn't know already,' said the Army's senior counterintelligence officer at the Pentagon." As a result, the one organization that probably should have issued a warning about Hasan failed to do so.

And the Army is not the only group that has suffered from the massive redundancy.

Even the analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is supposed to be where the most sensitive, most difficult-to-obtain nuggets of information are fused together, get low marks from intelligence officials for not producing reports that are original, or at least better than the reports already written by the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency.

When Maj. Gen. John M. Custer was the director of intelligence at U.S. Central Command, he grew angry at how little helpful information came out of the NCTC. In 2007, he visited its director at the time, retired Vice Adm. John Scott Redd, to tell him so. "I told him that after 41/2 years, this organization had never produced one shred of information that helped me prosecute three wars!" he said loudly, leaning over the table during an interview.

Two years later, Custer, now head of the Army's intelligence school at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., still gets red-faced recalling that day, which reminds him of his frustration with Washington's bureaucracy. "Who has the mission of reducing redundancy and ensuring everybody doesn't gravitate to the lowest-hanging fruit?" he said. "Who orchestrates what is produced so that everybody doesn't produce the same thing?"

We already know the answer to Custer's question--"Nobody." And without any control over the redundancy, the whole system fails to be useful.

Bigger is not better.

Aside from the redundancy, the sheer size of the system results in an overall product that is counterproductive. To put the matter simply, there is more information that anyone has the capacity to absorb and assimilate. Here's another of the opening bullet points from the Post:

Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

And then there's this: "The overload of hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annual reports is actually counterproductive, say people who receive them. Some policymakers and senior officials don't dare delve into the backup clogging their computers." And that leads to another problem. "They rely instead on personal briefers, and those briefers usually rely on their own agency's analysis, re-creating the very problem identified as a main cause of the failure to thwart the attacks: a lack of information-sharing." This will be addressed in another section.

The size of the intelligence community combined with the sheer volume of data and reports it generates makes the whole system like a teenage boy experiencing a sudden growth spurt--uncoordinated and clumsy. Here's one example from "A hidden world, growing beyond control:"

Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases.

(emphasis added). And the problem is not just a multitude of databases. "The data flow is enormous, with dozens of databases feeding separate computer networks that cannot interact with one another." (emphasis added). I don't think that even if it was possible there should be one database or that every database should interact with every other one, but to have that many databases AND the lack of interaction is ridiculous. The current structure necessarily means that time and resources have to be spent on trying to access and search all the databases before anyone can even begin to try to piece together all the data into something useful. And why does this situation exist? "There is a long explanation for why these databases are still not connected, and it amounts to this: It's too hard, and some agency heads don't really want to give up the systems they have." More on this in the next section...

As stated earlier, the creation of DHS and ODNI was supposed to solve the coordination problem, but that simply has not happened. Here's a scary excerpt from the Post:

Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department's most sensitive programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered.

"I'm not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities," he said in an interview. "The complexity of this system defies description."

And just as the redundancy problem has resulted in real world failures, so too has this size/coordination problem. The chief example cited by the Post is the Christmas Day attempted airline bombing.

Last fall, after eight years of growth and hirings, the enterprise was at full throttle when word emerged that something was seriously amiss inside Yemen. In response, President Obama signed an order sending dozens of secret commandos to that country to target and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda affiliate.

In Yemen, the commandos set up a joint operations center packed with hard drives, forensic kits and communications gear. They exchanged thousands of intercepts, agent reports, photographic evidence and real-time video surveillance with dozens of top-secret organizations in the United States.

That was the system as it was intended. But when the information reached the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington for analysis, it arrived buried within the 5,000 pieces of general terrorist-related data that are reviewed each day. Analysts had to switch from database to database, from hard drive to hard drive, from screen to screen, just to locate what might be interesting to study further.

As military operations in Yemen intensified and the chatter about a possible terrorist strike increased, the intelligence agencies ramped up their effort. The flood of information into the NCTC became a torrent.

Somewhere in that deluge was even more vital data. Partial names of someone in Yemen. A reference to a Nigerian radical who had gone to Yemen. A report of a father in Nigeria worried about a son who had become interested in radical teachings and had disappeared inside Yemen.

These were all clues to what would happen when a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab left Yemen and eventually boarded a plane in Amsterdam bound for Detroit. But nobody put them together because, as officials would testify later, the system had gotten so big that the lines of responsibility had become hopelessly blurred.

"There are so many people involved here," NCTC Director Leiter told Congress.

"Everyone had the dots to connect," DNI Blair explained to the lawmakers. "But I hadn't made it clear exactly who had primary responsibility."

And so Abdulmutallab was able to step aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. As it descended toward Detroit, he allegedly tried to ignite explosives hidden in his underwear. It wasn't the very expensive, very large 9/11 enterprise that prevented disaster. It was a passenger who saw what he was doing and tackled him. "We didn't follow up and prioritize the stream of intelligence," White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan explained afterward. "Because no one intelligence entity, or team or task force was assigned responsibility for doing that follow-up investigation."

Un-freaking-believable. It is easy to pin the blame on ODNI and DNI Blair for this failure, but that is not entirely fair, as will be explained in the next section.

What is this? Junior high school?

Even though one of the stated intentions behind the creation of DHS was oversight and coordination, as I have said before, the greatest result of the Homeland Security Act (which created DHS) was a massive reorganization of the federal bureaucracy. In my opinion, such scale of reorganization was unnecessary and did more harm than good. The reorganization got rid of some very effective programs and ended up complicating, rather than simplifying, the bureacracy. The next "solution" was ODNI, but such solution was doomed to failure from the start.

From the start, ODNI never had the authority it needed to do its job. "[T]he law passed by Congress did not give the director clear legal or budgetary authority over intelligence matters, which meant he wouldn't have power over the individual agencies he was supposed to control." Also, the law creating ODNI did nothing to address the ever-present Washington turf wars. Damn near every federal agency wants to keep what it has, get more, and keep other agencies from getting any. These two deficiencies in the creation of ODNI meant ODNI could not succeed in the desired objectives, as noted by this excerpt from the Post:

Even before the first director, Ambassador John D. Negroponte, was on the job, the turf battles began. The Defense Department shifted billions of dollars out of one budget and into another so that the ODNI could not touch it, according to two senior officials who watched the process. The CIA reclassified some of its most sensitive information at a higher level so the National Counterterrorism Center staff, part of the ODNI, would not be allowed to see it, said former intelligence officers involved.

And that brings up related problems--the failure to share information and the keeping of secrets. Part of the effort by agencies to keep exclusive control of their organizations (and thus get an edge on other agencies) includes what are known as "Special Access Programs" or "SAPs." As the name implies, access to these programs is very limited, and they are monitored by only those way up the food chain. But even some high up on the food chain are not allowed access, as shown by this Post excerpt:

One military officer involved in one such program said he was ordered to sign a document prohibiting him from disclosing it to his four-star commander, with whom he worked closely every day, because the commander was not authorized to know about it. Another senior defense official recalls the day he tried to find out about a program in his budget, only to be rebuffed by a peer. "What do you mean you can't tell me? I pay for the program," he recalled saying in a heated exchange.

It doesn't take a vivid imagination to see how such secrecy probably extends outward through the whole system. Lest one thinks that SAPs don't pose a significant obstacle for the entire system, consider the following:

[T]he Pentagon's list of code names for (SAPs) runs 300 pages. The intelligence community has hundreds more of its own, and those hundreds have thousands of sub-programs with their own limits on the number of people authorized to know anything about them. All this means that very few people have a complete sense of what's going on.

"There's only one entity in the entire universe that has visibility on all SAPs - that's God," said James R. Clapper, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the Obama administration's nominee to be the next director of national intelligence.

I think all this secrecy helps explain why the multitude of agencies are reluctant to change their databases and other technical systems (as mentioned above). If databases are consolidated or otherwise made accessible by other agencies, the secrecy will be harder to maintain, and a given agency's turf could be encroached upon.

And there's another aspect to "protecting one's turf, as pointed out by the Post: "Another senior intelligence official with wide access to many programs said that secrecy is sometimes used to protect ineffective projects." Ineffective programs could be cut, which would mean that agency would lose funding and prestige, and no agency wants that.

So, what I am reminded of is a line from the TV show "Burn Notice" as delivered by the great Bruce Campbell: "You know spies--bunch of bitchy little girls." What we have is a bunch of agencies that refuse to cooperate, refuse to share, keep secrets from other groups, are more concerned with their own interests rather than the nation's interests, and don't want to answer to any authority.

That's why this section is entitled "What is this? Junior high school?"

And another thing...This "junior high" atmosphere creates and/or exacerbates the problems of size, redundancy, and lack of coordination.

But wait, there's more...

So if you think this post paints a messy picture, you ain't seen nothing yet. "A hidden world, growing beyond control" details many more problems with our intelligence system, and the second article in the Post series presents yet another big problem. Stay tuned...