The Story of a Bug Exterminator from Texas

BEST, ABSOLUTE BEST PROGRAM ON TV IS THE ANCIENT ALIENS SERIES ON HISTORY CHANNEL

2010-05-07T07:58:00.001-07:00

THIS SERIES IS THE VERY BEST SHOW ON TV NOW OR EVER. I AM AGAIN A GIGANTIC HISTORY CHANNEL FAN AND SUPPORTER FOR THIS SHOW ALONE!

DeLay to Announce Resignation From House

2006-04-04T05:11:00.000-07:00

"By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON Apr 4, 2006 (AP)— Succumbing to scandal, former Majority Leader Tom Delay intends to resign from Congress within weeks, closing out a career that blended unflinching conservatism with a bare-knuckled political style.

DeLay is scheduled to appear on Fox News Channel "
From http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1803255
============SNIP================
It's about time!

Prosecutors will seek to reinstate charges against Tom Delay

2006-04-01T05:17:00.000-08:00

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060321-1929-delayindictment.html

"AUSTIN, Texas – Prosecutors will try to persuade a Texas appeals court Wednesday to reinstate some of the criminal charges against Rep. Tom DeLay, who is trying to win re-election to Congress while under indictment.
In December, a judge threw out some of the conspiracy and money laundering charges against the former House majority leader, saying the conspiracy law DeLay allegedly violated did not exist at the time.

Prosecutors say that it did. Both sides will argue their cases before the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals.

DeLay, who will not attend the hearing, said charges shouldn't be restored and blamed the case on politics. He also said he's frustrated with the proceedings.

“It's been almost 120 days that this frivolous appeal has been before the 3rd Circuit,” DeLay said Tuesday in Houston. “I would hope that they would come to a speedy resolution on a matter that would, I think, take a first-year law student an hour to make a ruling on.”

Because of the dispute, no trial date has been set.

DeLay is accused of funneling illegal corporate donations to Republican candidates for the Texas House. The Republicans went on to win control of the Legislature in 2002 and pushed through a DeLay-engineered redistricting plan that helped Texas send more Republicans to Congress in 2004."

Former DeLay aide pleads guilty to conspiracy charge - 04/01/06 - The Detroit News

2006-04-01T05:13:00.000-08:00

Former DeLay aide pleads guilty to conspiracy charge - 04/01/06 - The Detroit News
" Tony Rudy, DeLay's onetime deputy chief of staff, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to a single charge of conspiracy in connection with the scandal, admitting that he trafficked in cash, gifts and other favors both while working in the leadership office and after leaving government to lobby his old acquaintances for Abramoff and his clients.

The agreement by Rudy, 39, to cooperate with prosecutors follows a similar deal struck in November with DeLay's former press secretary. It indicates that the Justice Department's effort to tunnel deeper into the congressional bribery scandal that Abramoff ignited is making headway.

In particular, the Rudy plea signals further trouble for Ohio Republican Robert Ney, who was previously identified as being a recipient of Abramoff largesse and who is mentioned anew -- albeit anonymously -- in Rudy's agreement with prosecutors.

A lawyer for DeLay said Friday that he had supplied investigators looking into the scandal with more than 100 e-mails from DeLay's congressional office as well as other information. But the lawyer continued to assert that his client was innocent, and said that he had been told several months ago that DeLay was not a target of the investigation. Some of the information he supplied might have been used by prosecutors to force the former aides to the plea bargaining table.

"Tom DeLay has said for several months now that he has never taken an official position, never cast a vote, based on anything other than his strong, principled beliefs in Republican philosophy and conservative government," said his lawyer, Richard Cullen. "A clear reading of the legal documents today indicates that there's nothing in there that is inconsistent with that."

The Rudy plea agreement offers another window into how Abramoff became deeply invested in congressional staffers, although it largely repeats the pattern of questionable dealings that surfaced earlier, including documents laying out Abramoff's own agreement to plead guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges last January. In effect, Rudy admitted to being on the payroll of Abramoff even before he left government to work for the lobbyist at his once high-flying practice at the Washington, D.C., law and lobbying firm of Greenberg Traurig."

YEEEEEHAW- Reaction to DeLay Announcement

2006-01-07T13:16:00.000-08:00

"Reaction to Rep. Tom DeLay's announcement Saturday that he will abandon his bid to reclaim his post as majority leader: "We respect Congressman DeLay's decision to put the interests of the American people, the House of Representatives and the Republican Party first." - White House spokeswoman Erin Healy. "For years, at the expense of the American people, the House Republicans have enabled and benefited from the Republican culture of corruption engineered by Tom DeLay. The culture of corruption is so pervasive in the Republican conference that a single person stepping down is not nearly enough to clean up the Republican Congress." - House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "My belief is that Tom will eventually be cleared and exonerated, and my hope is that our conference will one day again benefit from Tom's rare commitment to the principles of smaller government and freedom for which all Republicans fight." - Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who is considered likely to seek the job of majority leader. "My good friend Tom DeLay has made a very difficult decision. ... It is my firm belief that he will beat these baseless charges and will continue to be a strong, effective and committed leader in our efforts to protect our country, limit the scope of government, and win the battle of ideas. ... I know Tom's legacy as one of the most effective Republican leaders in history is assured." - Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo, the GOP whip who temporarily has filled in for DeLay and is likely to run for the job. "I look forward to the democratic process of choosing a new majority leader who will ensure that integrity, honesty, and ethical accountability are central tenants of government operations in Washington." - Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., one of the leaders of the effort to have a new election for majority leader. "We don't just need new leaders, we need a course correction. This is deeper than just who stands at the head of the party. We have created a system here ...that just breeds corruption. ... We just cannot continue with this trend." - Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who worked with Bass on pressing for a new election. "I applaud his decision. It's a good decision. When we return in January, I look forward to a newly elected leadership team." - Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. "
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/01/07/ap2434640.html
==============SNIP==================
My reaction....YEEEEEEEEEEHAW! Time to break out those DDT sprayers and git back
to what you wuz born to do Tommy Boy...kill them cockroaches.

Well..the story has gone full circle. He flunked too bad to go to med school...and finally
fell into the bug killin' bidness..rose to the heights as the head of the feces pile they call the NeoCon jobs, and now..back to crawling in the dirt with the chiggers and silverfish.

Karma's a bitch ain't it Tommy!

AM - Saddam Hussein makes torture allegations

2005-12-21T17:41:00.000-08:00

TONY EASTLEY: Saddam Hussein has accused his American captors of beating and torturing him while in detention.

Speaking at his trial in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein told the court that signs of torture could be seen all over his body.

The prosecution has ridiculed his claims, saying the former Iraqi leader was relatively well off, being held in a comfortable, air-conditioned room in a city where electricity supply is largely hit and miss.

Edmond Roy reports.

EDMOND ROY: After sitting quietly through several hours of testimony that included witnesses who said that Saddam Hussein's agents had tortured people by ripping off their skin, the former Iraqi leader launched into an extended outburst at the court.

He claimed that he had been tortured and beaten on every part of his body and that his seven co-defendants had been given the same treatment by American guards.

SADDAM HUSSEIN (translated): I would say yes, we were beaten up. We were beaten up by Americans and we were tortured. Every one of us. This man when he gets up he has to hold the railing because he was beaten up badly. He was beaten badly with rifle butts on his back.

EDMOND ROY: Chief Prosecutor Jaafar al-Mousawi said he would investigate the claims and added that if they were true, the former Iraqi leader would be transferred to the custody of Iraqi troops.

But the prosecution has dismissed the allegations with Christopher Reid of the US embassy in Baghdad describing them as absolutely bogus.

CHRISTOPHER REID: We heard Barzon al-Tikriti complaining about his treatment and saying the cigarettes I'm getting are terrible and I only get six a day, that kind of a complaint. So nowhere then was anything mentioned about being beaten or whatever.

So I think these are bogus claims, they're designed to ambush the court, and they're designed to really play on or play against some of the testimony that we've had in the case so far.

EDMOND ROY: A sentiment repeated in Washington by State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack.

SEAN MCCORMACK: I know of nothing that would substantiate such a claim. He's given to grandstanding in this trial. But where the focus should be is on the testimony of those people who were victimised.

EDMOND ROY: Among those witnesses was al-Haidari, who testified that seven of his brothers were executed by Saddam's soldiers and that their bodies have never been found.

He told the court that he and other residents of his village were taken to Baghdad and thrown into a prison where people were given electric shocks and regular beatings.

Saddam Hussein and seven of his co-defendants are on trial for the deaths of more than 140 Shiites following a 1982 assassination attempt against him in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad.

Two weeks ago, Saddam had called the court ''unjust'' and boycotted a session. Earlier this month, he had refused to attend a session saying the court could go to hell. This time, he appeared calm and paid close attention to the proceedings, even taking notes at times.

He could be hanged if found guilty by the court

Tom DeLay's House of Shame - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

2005-10-30T08:49:00.000-08:00

Tom DeLay's House of Shame
Congress has always had its share of extremists. But the DeLay era is the first time the fringe has ever been in charge.
NEWSWEEK ON AIR
Politics: Delay Indicted and Other GOP Woes
10/2/05: Jonathan Alter, NEWSWEEK Columnist, NBC analyst; and Stephen Hess, Research Professor of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University

• Audio clip | Complete show | Podcast

Related Stories | What's this?
• The Exterminator: Tom DeLay
• Clift: How DeLay Indictment Could Hurt GOP
• Clift: DeLay Woes Open a Door for the Dems
• The disassembly of Tom DeLay
• Reactions from Sugar Land

Most Popular
• Most Viewed • Top Rated • Most E-mailed

• Flying Blind
• The Price Of Loyalty
• Karl Rove: Last-Minute Evidence
• Sweetness and Fight
• Wind. Rain. More Wind. More Rain.
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
• The Price Of Loyalty
• I Have Had to Learn To Live With Peace
• 'Solid, Strong, True'
• Pets in Peril
• Airline CEOs Know Something You Don't
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com
• The Price Of Loyalty
• 'Failure Is Not an Option'
• Sweetness and Fight
• 'Eleven Men And Sic 'Em'
• Most viewed on MSNBC.com

NATIONAL NEWS
• Flying Blind: Team Bush in Turmoil
• Cheney's Cheney
• CIA Probe: Why Reporters Need Protection
• Second Terms Often Tough for Presidents
• Alter: The Price of Loyalty Is Incompetence

• More National News

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for our Web-Exclusive Alert
• Click here to have the latest from Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Add RSS feed for this topic

Gulf Hurricanes Complete Coverage

• Photo Gallery: Hurricane Wilma's Wrath
• Audio: Battered Miami Still Lacks Power
• Lessons from a Deadly Season
• Another Reason to Digitize Records
• Portrait of the Poor: An Interactive
• Faces of Katrina: A Photo Essay

BLOG TALK
Read what bloggers are saying about this Newsweek article
82 blogs are discussing Tom DeLay's House of Shame right now. View All »

Search the Site

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Oct. 10, 2005 issue - A decade ago, I paid a call on Tom DeLay in his ornate office in the Capitol. I had heard a rumor about him that I figured could not possibly be true. The rumor was that after the GOP took control of the House that year, DeLay had begun keeping a little black book with the names of Washington lobbyists who wanted to come see him. If the lobbyists were not Republicans and contributors to his power base, they didn't get into "the people's House." DeLay not only confirmed the story, he showed me the book. His time was limited, DeLay explained with a genial smile. Why should he open his door to people who were not on the team?

Thus began what historians will regard as the single most corrupt decade in the long and colorful history of the House of Representatives. Come on, you say. How about all those years when congressmen accepted cash in the House chamber and then staggered onto the floor drunk? Yes, special interests have bought off members of Congress at least since Daniel Webster took his seat while on the payroll of a bank. And yes, Congress over the years has seen dozens of sex scandals and dozens of members brought low by financial improprieties. But never before has the leadership of the House been hijacked by a small band of extremists bent on building a ruthless shakedown machine, lining the pockets of their richest constituents and rolling back popular protections for ordinary people. These folks borrow like banana republics and spend like Tip O'Neill on speed.

I have no idea if DeLay has technically broken the law. What interests me is how this moderate, evenly divided nation came to be ruled on at least one side of Capitol Hill by a zealot. This is a man who calls the Environmental Protection Agency "the Gestapo of government" and favors repealing the Clean Air Act because "it's never been proven that air toxins are hazardous to people"; who insists repeatedly that judges on the other side of issues "need to be intimidated" and rejects the idea of a separation of church and state; who claims there are no parents trying to raise families on the minimum wage—that "fortunately, such families do not exist" (at least Newt Gingrich was intrigued by the challenges of poverty); who once said: "A woman can't take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure." I could go on all day. Congress has always had its share of extremists. But the DeLay era is the first time the fringe has ever been in charge.

The only comparison to DeLay Co. might be the Radical Republicans of the 1860s. But the 19th-century Radical Republican agenda was to integrate and remake the South. The 21st-century Radical Republican agenda is to enact the wish list of the tobacco and gun lobbies, repeal health and safety regulations and spend billions on shameless pork-barrel projects to keep the GOP at the trough. Another analogy is to Republican Speaker Joe Cannon, who ran the House with an iron fist a century ago. But Cannon had to contend with Progressive Republicans who eventually stripped him of his power. DeLay's ruling radical conservative claque remains united, at least for now.

Comparisons with fellow Texan Sam Rayburn fall short, too. Rayburn was respected on both sides of the aisle for his rock-solid integrity. He and most other House speakers carefully balanced their support for corporate interests like the oil depletion allowance with at least some sense of the public good. And they had to share much of their power with committee chairmen. Today, seniority is much less important. Chairmen are term-limited (six years) or tossed if they displease DeLay. And this crowd views "the public interest" as strictly for liberal pantywaists.

How have they succeeded? A new book, "Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy," by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, explains how the GOP is simply better than the Democratic Party at the basic blocking and tackling of politics, including the exploitation of cultural and religious issues. The authors argue that even if DeLay goes down, the zealotry and corporate shilling will continue as long as the GOP controls the House. Consider DeLay's temporary replacement, Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt. The Washington Post reported last week that Blunt is respected by Republican members in part because he has "strong ties to the Washington lobbying community." That's a qualification for office?

The only reason the House hasn't done even more damage is that the Senate often sands down the most noxious ideas, making the bills merely bad, not disastrous. What next for the House of Shame? If DeLay's acquitted, he'll be back in power. If he's convicted, his proteges will continue his work. Reform efforts by fiscal conservatives determined to curb their borrow-and-spend colleagues are probably doomed. The only way to get rid of the termites eating away the people's House is to stamp them out at the next election

DeLAY ARRESTED..MUGSHOT

2005-10-21T10:35:00.000-07:00

Texas Court Issues Warrant for DeLay

2005-10-19T15:57:00.000-07:00

Texas Court Issues Warrant for DeLay

Wednesday October 19, 2005 11:46 PM

AP Photo NY117

By SUZANNE GAMBOA

Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A state court issued an arrest warrant on Wednesday for Rep. Tom DeLay, requiring him to appear in Texas for booking on state conspiracy and money laundering charges.

The court set an initial $10,000 bail as a routine step before the Texas Republican's first court appearance Friday.

DeLay, R-Texas, could be fingerprinted and photographed, although his lawyers had hoped to avoid this step. DeLay probably will surrender in his home county of Fort Bend, near Houston, but he could go to any law enforcement office in Texas. His court appearance will be in Austin.

The warrant, known as a capias, is ``a matter of routine and bond will be posted,'' said DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin.

DeLay has stepped down as U.S. House majority leader - at least temporarily - under a Republican rule requiring him to relinquish the post if charged with a felony.

Two grand juries have charged DeLay and two political associates in an alleged scheme to violate state election law, by funneling corporate donations to candidates for the Texas Legislature. State law prohibits use of corporate donations to finance state campaigns, although the money can be used for administrative expenses.

The indictments charge that a DeLay-founded Texas political committee sent corporate donations to the Republican National Committee in Washington, and the national party sent funds back to the state for 2002 campaigns.

DeLay has denied wrongdoing and accused Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle - a Democrat - of having partisan motives. Earle has denied the accusation.

Earle did not ask for the arrest warrant for DeLay, but approved the court's request, his office said Wednesday.

DeLay's Republican fund-raising in 2002 had major political consequences, allowing the GOP to take control of the Texas Legislature. The Legislature then redrew congressional boundaries according to a DeLay-inspired plan, took command of the state's U.S. House delegation and helped the GOP retain its House majority.

======SNIP=====
Maybe he can kill cockroaches in his cell, and renew his bug killer license!

DeLay Meeting, RNC Actions Coincided

2005-10-08T15:55:00.000-07:00

DeLay Meeting, RNC Actions Coincided
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; Page A05

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) met for at least 30 minutes with the top fundraiser of his Texas political action committee on Oct. 2, 2002, the same day that the Republican National Committee in Washington set in motion a series of financial transactions at the heart of the money-laundering and conspiracy case against DeLay.

During the meeting at his Capitol office, DeLay conferred with James W. Ellis, the head of his principal fundraising committee in Washington and his chief fundraiser in Texas. Ellis had earlier given the Republican National Committee a check for $190,000 drawn mostly from corporate contributions. The same day as the meeting, the RNC ordered $190,000 worth of checks sent to seven Republican legislative candidates in Texas.

Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is fighting charges in Texas. (By Larry Downing -- Reuters)

Politics Trivia
Which of the following entertainment companies did Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers once represent as a trial litigator?

Viacom
News Corporation
Walt Disney Company
Comcast

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
American Times :: Main Page
Alpha Liberal: The Evolutionary Theory Of Politics
Dump Doolittle

Full List of Blogs (49 links) »

In the past two weeks, two separate Texas grand juries have returned indictments against DeLay, Ellis and a political associate alleging that these transactions amounted to money laundering intended to circumvent a Texas campaign law barring the use of corporate funds for state election purposes. The aim of the alleged scheme was to ensure that Republicans gain control of the Texas House, and thus reorder the state's congressional districts in a manner favoring the election of more Republicans to Congress.

The prosecutor who brought the indictment, Ronnie Earle, has not described the evidence he presented to the grand jury linking DeLay to the $190,000 transactions. But the fact that DeLay and his alleged co-conspirator, fundraiser Ellis, conferred on the same day the checks were ordered has attracted the attention of lawyers involved in the case because of speculation that the two men shared important information that day.

To prove that DeLay participated in money laundering or in a conspiracy to conduct it -- the two allegations in the felony indictment brought against DeLay on Monday morning -- Earle will have to prove two things, according to lawyers who are closely following the case: The transactions involving the $190,000 were illegal, and DeLay played some critical role, by approving them or by helping to carry them out.

DeLay and Ellis have so far given slightly different accounts of the substance of their discussion. Ellis's attorney, Jonathan D. Pauerstein, said that Ellis recalls that their Oct. 2 discussion did not concern or involve Texas or Texas candidates. But DeLay, interviewed last weekend on "Fox News Sunday," said that during a "scheduling meeting" with Ellis in October, Ellis said while they were leaving his office that "by the way, we sent money" to Washington.

DeLay's lead attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said in an interview this week that "there is no question that at some point Ellis told him," but that DeLay does not recall the precise timing. DeGuerin said "it could have been that day" -- Oct. 2, the day the same arm of the RNC began to process the seven checks for printing two days later, on Oct. 4.

But DeGuerin said that this does not mean DeLay was "the one who made those decisions" about collecting the funds, sending them to Washington and returning the same total amount to candidates in Texas. "It wasn't his role or his authority" because DeLay was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the committee.

Ellis, who still directs DeLay's Washington-based Americans for a Republican Majority political action committee (ARMPAC), "is the kind of guy who would say, 'I did this, how about that?' " according to DeGuerin. DeLay may have responded, DeGuerin said, by saying, "Hey, that's great," but "that does not make him a part of the agreement to do that."

In the indictment, the grand jury accused DeLay, Ellis and John Colyandro -- then the director of Texans for a Republican Majority, an ARMPAC offshoot -- of agreeing with the Republican National Committee to conduct the offense of money laundering and set forth a sequence of key events that began on Sept. 11, 2002. It alleges that Ellis "did request and propose" on that day that an arm of the RNC make the payments to Texas Republicans once it had received the check from Texas.

The next day, according to the indictment, Ellis delivered the check to the Republican National State Elections Committee, an arm of the RNC, and also provided it "with a document that contained the names of several candidates." He also "requested and proposed" how much each candidate should receive, the indictment said.

Earle has never disclosed the evidence behind these allegations, and Ellis, through his lawyer Pauerstein, denies this account. Pauerstein says that Ellis did not discuss donations to candidates while delivering the check, and that he did not "deliver the list, if there was a list," of the candidates that should receive checks.

According to documents disclosed earlier this year in a civil trial related to the same transactions, a staff member in the office of then-RNC Chairman Marc Racicot requested on Oct. 2 that checks be sent to the Texas Republicans. The next day, Racicot arrived in Texas to appear at a series of fundraising events organized by Texans for a Republican Majority, including a dinner with Gov. Rick Perry, a DeLay ally. With the approval of the RNC's lawyers and political directors, the checks were written and sent to Texas on Oct. 4.

The RNC has denied any wrongdoing and has asserted that all the transactions were legal.

Although the indictment alleges that DeLay and his two aides "conducted, supervised, and facilitated" the transactions, DeLay said last weekend, about the $190,000 sent from Texas to Washington, that "there was no way that I knew before this event happened that it would happen." Earle would need to prove otherwise to sustain his case.

DeLay, one of the most powerful politicians in Washington, was forced under House GOP rules to step down as majority leader on Sept. 28 after his first indictment.

EDITORIAL: DeLay, Blunt engaged in a convoluted money scheme

2005-10-08T15:54:00.000-07:00

EDITORIAL: DeLay, Blunt engaged in a convoluted money scheme
EDITORIAL: DeLay, Blunt engaged in a convoluted money scheme

The Lufkin Daily News

Friday, October 07, 2005

We have no idea if former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is guilty of money laundering. The Hammer, as he is not-so-affectionately known, was indicted by a Travis County grand jury for funneling illegal donations from corporations to GOP political candidate in Texas elections.

What is clear is that both DeLay and Roy Blunt, who became majority leader when DeLay was forced to step down because of House rules, were engaged in a convoluted scheme to divert donations.

According to the Associated Press, both DeLay and Blunt diverted donations secretly collected to help fund Republican political convention parties to some of their own pet causes, often funneling money back and forth. In one case, money raised by DeLay's political-action committee was used to help Blunt's son in his successful campaign to become Missouri secretary of state. There are a number of other examples where money donated for one purpose was then transferred to another committee or campaign, and the donors were never told.

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer, Lawrence Noble, said it's clear the intent was to "obscure, if not cover, the original source," according to the AP.

Indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff was also involved in this carousel of money-swapping. Investigator are trying to determine exactly who paid for a high-dollar golfing trip to Scotland and England that Abramoff arranged for DeLay in 2000.

Both Blunt and DeLay formed entities that would allow them to collect funds of any size and from any source without federal scrutiny. It was legal at the time but illustrates the pervasive nature of money in modern politics. For example, in 2000 DeLay's convention group sent $50,000 to Blunt's entity. Blunt's group then made a $10,000 to DeLay's children's charity and eventually paid $40,000 to a lobbying firm run by DeLay's former chief of staff. DeLay's wife worked at that lobbying firm, according to the AP.

Whether DeLay is convicted or not, Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from such convoluted money dealings. DeLay's fundraising tactics have often danced along the edge of what's ethical and legal, but his ability to get folks elected — especially in Texas — kept him in power. Certainly now, he's more of a liability than an asset to the GOP's hopes of keeping control of the House after next year's elections.

We've about given up on any type of realistic way of limiting campaign funding. Politicians in both parties just find more creative ways to get around whatever law is in place. About the best we can hope for is an increased demand for full, instant disclosure of all donations. That's certainly possible with the Internet. It will be up to the media and political watchdogs to make sure voters — and donors — know exactly how to follow the money trail.

Worldandnation: DeLay indicted on new charges

2005-10-04T04:19:00.000-07:00

Worldandnation: DeLay indicted on new charges
AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted Rep. Tom DeLay again on money laundering charges after the former majority leader attacked last week's indictment on technical grounds.

The new indictment contains two counts: conspiring to launder money and money laundering. The latter charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison.

The indictment accuses DeLay, R-Texas, of illegally circumventing the state's law against corporate campaign contributions, and was issued by a newly empanelled Travis County grand jury on the first day of its term.

A separate Travis County grand jury handed up indictments against DeLay - on a charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws - and his associates Wednesday, the last day of that grand jury's term.

DeLay, who stepped down as House majority leader last week, called the new charges an "abomination of justice" by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. It came just as DeLay's attorneys were filing a motion to dismiss the first charge against him because the law he was alleged to have broken was not in effect until 2003 - the year after the alleged money transfers.

"Ronnie Earle has stooped to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse," DeLay said in a statement. "He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a "do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate."

University of Texas law professor George Dix, an expert in election legal matters, said Monday night that he thinks DeLay's attorneys are wrong in maintaining that the initial conspiracy complaint against DeLay was not valid in 2002.

The 2003 legislative session simply made explicit the somewhat "awkward language" of the law that already made it a criminal conspiracy to agree to violate election laws, Dix said. "I don't see any reason to think that, in 2002, it was not a crime of conspiracy to agree to violate the election code in a way that would be a felony," he said.

The judge who will preside in DeLay's case is out of the country on vacation and couldn't rule on the defense motion. Other state district judges declined to rule on the motion in his place.

Earle's office did not return repeated phone calls from the Associated Press.

The new indictment was issued as Bush administration officials confirmed news reports in London that the Justice Department had asked British police to question former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the circumstances of her meeting in 2000 with DeLay during a lavish trip to Britain organized by the Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The interview request was the first publicly disclosed evidence from the Justice Department that DeLay was under scrutiny in the department's wide-ranging corruption investigation of Abramoff.

=snip=======

DeLay...you "beeeeaatch"...take that!

GO RONNIE EARLE GO!
:)

Scoopt.org => USA => A second grand jury indicts DeLay

2005-10-04T04:18:00.000-07:00

Scoopt.org => USA => A second grand jury indicts DeLay: "A second grand jury indicts DeLay "A second grand jury indicts DeLay

Representative Tom DeLay was indicted again yesterday -- this time on money laundering charges -- in an escalating criminal case that has far-ranging political implications in Texas and Washington. The new indictment accuses DeLay, a Texas Republican, of illegally circumventing the state's law against corporate campaign contributions, and was issued by a newly empanelled Travis County grand jury on the first day of its term. The new indictment follows on the heels of indictments against DeLay and his associates by a separate Travis County grand jury on Sept. 28, the last day of that grand jury's term.

Source: Boston Globe

DeLay Indicted - Again; Ties to Abramoff Also Under Investigation

2005-10-04T04:17:00.001-07:00

DeLay Indicted - Again; Ties to Abramoff Also Under Investigation
DeLay Indicted - Again; Ties to Abramoff Also Under Investigation

The Washington Post reports that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) has been indicted in Texas on two new charges, brought by a new grand jury on Monday. One count is conspiracy to commit money-laundering, charging that DeLay and his associates "did knowingly, conduct, supervise, and facilitate" the transfer from Texas to Washington DC back to Texas, a violation of the state's money-laundering laws.

According to the Post,
Both money-laundering crimes are more-serious felonies, and the maximum punishment is life in jail. DeLay has been forced by House rules to relinquish his post as majority leader, and the new indictments stand in the way of any quick reinstatement based on any legal flaws in last week's indictment...

Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, said that "for a new grand jury to indict DeLay on a day's notice suggests the evidence of his participation is convincing."
Monday was the last day Ronnie Earle could bring this new indictment, because of the Texas statute of limitations on money laundering, according to Bloomberg.

DeLay and two associates, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro, have been accused of accepting $190,000 in corporate money during the 2002 state legislative races, then sending the money to the Republican National Committee, along with a list of candidates to support. The RNC, in a quid pro quo, then contributed $190,000 to Texas legislative candidates, according to the charges. Texas election law prohibits corporate donations for political campaigns.

DeLay was censured by the House ethics committee three times last year. The Houston Chronicle reported Saturday that DeLay has troubles inside the beltway, as well:
Particularly worrisome for DeLay are a federal investigation into the dealings of Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who had close ties to the Sugar Land Republican, and a House ethics committee examination of DeLay's trips and any other activities with Abramoff...

One of the people who reportedly has been talking with federal investigators probing Abramoff is Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide who later became a business associate of Abramoff in deals that led to the alleged bilking of $82 million from the Indian clients.

Scanlon could be a bridge between the SunCruz case and the Abramoff investigation in Washington, because he did public relations work for the Florida company and for Abramoff's Indian clients. He also could be a source of information on whether DeLay was improperly influenced by trips, gifts or campaign contributions.

DeLay Indicted Again in Connection With Fund Raising (Update1)

2005-10-04T04:17:00.000-07:00

Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Tom DeLay was indicted for the second time in less than a week by a Texas grand jury in connection with alleged campaign-fundraising abuses.

DeLay, 58, was charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering today. Under House of Representatives rules, he had to step down as majority leader, the No. 2 Republican post in that body, after the initial indictment handed up on Sept. 28 charged him with a single count of conspiracy.

Lawyers for DeLay earlier today had tried to get the conspiracy indictment thrown out, saying it wasn't applicable because the law making it illegal went into effect after the alleged infraction. The new charges followed. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing and called the latest charges brought Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle ``an abomination.''

Earle ``may be worried about the conspiracy indictment as being particularly weak,'' said Jan Baran, a lawyer at Wiley Rein & Fielding in Washington, referring to last week's indictment. While Baran hadn't read the second indictment, he said the first charge had gaps in evidence.

Earle couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

DeLay and two associates, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro, are accused of taking $190,000 in corporate money for the 2002 state legislative races and sending it to the Republican National Committee, which in turn contributed $190,000 to Texas legislative candidates, according to the state. Under Texas election law, corporate donations cannot be spent on political campaigns.

Capturing Legislature

The Republicans captured control of the Texas legislature in 2002 for the first time since during the Reconstruction period that followed the U.S. Civil War. The new Republican majorities then redrew the congressional district lines without waiting for the next U.S. Census, helping the party increase its majority in the U.S. House.

The statute of limitations in Texas would have run out tomorrow on the money-laundering activities, so today was the last day Earle could bring the new indictment, Baran said. Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's attorney, said the latest grand jury was empaneled today and handed up the indictment five hours later.

``If we go to court, we're going to win,'' DeGuerin said tonight during a televised press conference from Sugar Land, Texas, DeLay's district. ``I thought this would be resolved quickly and Congressman DeLay would resume his leadership post. But obviously the game here is to keep Congressman DeLay out of his leadership post in Washington.''

`New Low'

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt was named majority leader on an acting basis after DeLay stepped down last week. DeLay said he would continue to advise the Republican leadership while fighting the charges against him.

``Ronnie Earle has stooped to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse,'' DeLay said today in a statement. ``He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a `do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate. This is an abomination of justice.''

The law making conspiracy illegal didn't go into effect until Sept. 1, 2003, a year after the alleged actions took place, Baran said.

Today's indictment is the latest in a series of legal and ethical problems faced by DeLay. He was rebuked three times last year by the House ethics committee. He also had a close relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is under investigation by a Justice Department-led task force.

From http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a_EB.E8oCfwE&refer=us
==SNIP=======
SNICKER SNICKER SNICKER...GUFFFFFAWWWW
LOLOLOLOL....READ THAT ONE ASSHOLE DELAY!

CTV.ca | DeLay indicted in Texas campaign finance probe

2005-09-28T17:29:00.000-07:00

DeLay indicted in Texas campaign finance probe
Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a serious blow for President George W. Bush, powerful Republican Tom DeLay was forced to step down Wednesday as House majority leader to face a conspiracy charge in a Texas campaign finance scheme.

Bush, who relied on DeLay's tough style to push policy, is already having a tough time dealing with a party beleaguered by the weak response to hurricane Katrina and divided over how to pay for a massive rebuilding project.

Now DeLay's indictment after years of pushing ethical boundaries provides an opportunity for Democrats to pound Republicans on corruption issues in the run-up to next year's congressional elections.

DeLay, know as "the Hammer'' on Capitol Hill, came out swinging and proclaimed his innocence after word broke that a Texas grand jury charged him and two associates with violating a law banning corporate contributions to state candidates.

The charge came after a long investigation by Democratic district attorney Ronald Earle that DeLay has always portrayed as a political witch hunt.

"I have done nothing wrong,'' said DeLay, calling Earle a "rogue prosecutor'' and a "partisan fanatic.''

"I am innocent,'' he said. "This is one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history. It's a sham.''

Said Earle: "My job is to prosecute felonies. I'm doing my job.''

Republicans expressed support for DeLay as they selected Roy Blunt from Missouri, the current party whip in the House, to fill in temporarily.

The White House also stuck by DeLay, calling him "a good ally, a leader who we have worked closely with to get things done for the American people.''

"I think the president's view is that we need to let the legal process work,'' said press secretary Scott McClellan.

DeLay, who will keep his seat representing Houston suburbs, vowed he'll be back, saying Democrats won't be able to disrupt the party's agenda.

But some analysts don't see it that way, especially since Republicans have other high-profile ethical concerns.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is facing questions about the timing of a stock sale in a family-owned business.

Karl Rove, White House chief of staff, has been embroiled in controversy over the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

And a top federal procurement officer appointed by Bush was arrested this month on charges that he made false statements and obstructed a federal investigation into a golfing junket arranged by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

DeLay, 58, has long been at the centre of controversy. He was admonished three times last year by the House ethics committee for his conduct on three separate issues.

Now a Senate panel is pursuing his ties to Abramoff and questions about who paid the bills for DeLay's expensive overseas travel.

"The Republicans can't focus right now,'' said Charles Cushman, a politics professor at George Washington University.

"You've got this swirling set of accusations about greed, corruption and graft. This is going to follow them right up to the 2008 election. It's going to hurt a lot.''

Democrat Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader, was quick off the mark Wednesday.

"The criminal indictment ... is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people,'' she said in a statement.

The indictment accuses DeLay of accepting $155,000 US from companies and funnelling it through the Republican National Committee back to Texas state candidates, violating laws outlawing corporate donations.

It's a state felony punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

The charge came three weeks after a state political action committee DeLay created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was also indicted on accepting corporate contributions for use in 2002 state legislative races.

John Colyandro, former executive director of the Texas committee, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee, were also charged.

After Republicans gained control of the Texas legislature, DeLay created a federal redistricting plan that resulted in an increase of the Republican majority in the U.S. Congress.

DeLay Must Appear in Austin on Charge

2005-09-28T17:28:00.000-07:00

DeLay was indicted Wednesday on one count of criminal conspiracy for his alleged role in a campaign finance scheme that helped give Republicans power in the Texas House and in Congress.
DeLay's attorneys were working out the details of when the 11-term congressman would return to Texas in hopes of saving him from further embarrassment, they said.

"What we're trying to avoid is Ronnie Earle having him taken down in handcuffs, and fingerprinted and photographed. That's uncalled for and I don't think that's going to happen," said Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's attorney.

Earle, the Travis County district attorney, said it is up to the court to decide how DeLay would be arraigned.

It was not immediately clear whether DeLay would have to go through booking after responding to the summons for arraignment, said his attorney Bill White.

A bond amount would be set beforehand so Delay could immediately pay it and avoid a stay in jail. He also could waive going before a magistrate to have his rights and charges read to him, said Roger Wade, Travis County Sheriff's Office spokesman.

DeLay could go to trial in 90 days, which the defense said it favored. "We want a trial right away," DeGuerin said. "We want a trial by the end of the year."

Buck Wood, an attorney who represents Democrats suing some of the corporations that contributed to DeLay's PAC, said although it's difficult to go to trial quickly that may best serve DeLay.

"I can understand why Tom DeLay wants a quick trial, because politically (the indictment) paralyzes him," Wood said.

DeLay Is Indicted and Forced to Step Down as Majority Leader

2005-09-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

By DAVID STOUT
Published: September 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the powerful House Republican majority leader, was accused by a Texas grand jury today of criminal conspiracy in a campaign fund-raising scheme.

Mr. DeLay was indicted on one count charging that he violated state election laws in September 2002. Two political associates, John D. Colyandro and James W. Ellis, were indicted with him.

The indictment of Mr. DeLay, while not entirely unexpected, still reverberated through the Capitol. The House Republican rules require a member of the leadership to step down, at least temporarily, if indicted. Representative David Dreier of California is expected to replace him.

A conviction on the felony charge against Mr. DeLay, 58, carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. The lawmaker has consistently maintained his innocence and today asserted that the indictment resulted from a "purely political investigation" by the Travis County district attorney, Ronnie Earle, a Democrat.

"I have done nothing wrong," Mr. DeLay said, adding that he had violated "no law, no regulation, no rule of the House."

Mr. DeLay, speaking on Capitol Hill, described Mr. Erle, a longtime antagonist, as "a partisan fanatic" and a "rogue district attorney" and said the prosecutor had shamelessly courted journalists on "the only days he actually comes to the office."

Mr. DeLay said the charge lodged against him today was "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history," one that is "a sham, and Mr. Earle knows it."

Mr. Earle, in a separate news conference, disputed Mr. DeLay's contentions. "We have over the years prosecuted a number of public officials," he said in Houston, adding that it was his duty to go after "abuses of power." In fact, he said, he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans.

At the White House, the president's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, expressed support for Mr. Delay, telling reporters, "Mr. Delay is a good ally and a leader who we have worked closely with for the good of the American people."

"The president's view is to let the legal process work," Mr. McClellan said. "There's a legal process and we're going to let it work."

Democrats were quick to seize on Mr. DeLay's troubles. "The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people," the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said in a statement.

Mr. DeLay is second only to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois in power in the House of Representatives and has been credited with shepherding much of his party's legislative programs through Congress. He has also been seen as a key in expanding the Republican majority in the House, which now stands at 231 to 202 Democrats, with one independent and one vacancy.

Mr. Hastert has recommended that Mr. Dreier assume Mr. DeLay's duties as majority leader, with Representative Roy Blount of Missouri, the present majority whip, taking on some functions. Republicans were meeting this afternoon to put the speaker's recommendations into effect.

The indictment asserts that Mr. Colyandro and Mr. Ellis were part of a scheme in which corporations contributed large sums ($50,000 in one instance, and $25,000 in at least three other instances) that were destined for the Republican National Committee. The indictment includes a copy of a check for $190,000 made out to the Republican National State Elections Committee, a component of the party's national committee. That money was to go to various candidates for the Texas Legislature, the indictment says.

The indictment came just three weeks after a political organization formed by Mr. DeLay, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted on charges of taking illegal corporate money while Mr. DeLay was helping Republicans win control of the Texas Legislature as well as strengthening their hold on Congress.

The DeLay organization was charged with accepting a contribution of $100,000 from the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care and one of $20,000 from AT&T. A statewide business group, the Texas Association of Business, was also charged.

State law prohibits use of corporate contributions to advocate the election or defeat of state candidates, and prosecutors accuse the DeLay organization of engaging in a complex scheme to circumvent the law.

Mr. DeLay, who has also come under fire from the House ethics committee on three occasions in recent months, will not have to leave his post as the congressman from Texas's 22d District, near Houston, as a result of the indictment. But by his having to step down from his leadership position, his power will be vastly diminished, at least for the time being.

Mr. DeLay has won the grudging respect of Democrats for his effectiveness, not only in pushing legislation through the House but for helping to strengthen the Republican majority. In Texas, he helped to engineer a redistricting plan that boosted the Texas Republican majority to 21-11 in the current Congress.

Mr. DeLay's troubles come at an awkward time for Republicans, as President Bush is sagging in public opinion surveys and as the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, has been defending himself against questions about the timing of the sale of stock in a family-owned business.

To compound embarrassment for the Republicans, Mr. DeLay is a close friend of Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist who has been under scrutiny by the Justice Department for more than a year and who has been indicted on unrelated federal fraud charges in Florida.

Democrats are sure to try to capitalize on the Republican troubles in next year's Congressional elections, and probably in the presidential election campaign of 2008.

Representative Tom Reynolds of New York, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, asserted today that the political motive behind the investigation of Mr. DeLay was obvious. "The majority leader has been a highly effective leader of our conference," Mr. Reynolds said. "Democrats resent Tom DeLay because he routinely defeats them - both politically and legislatively."

"Until Majority Leader Tom DeLay has his day in court, it is vitally important he be afforded the same presumption of innocence afforded to every other American," Mr. Reynolds said.

Mr. Dreier, who will take over the majority leader's office, was first elected to Congress in 1980 and is currently chairman of the powerful Rules Committee. On his Web site he describes his "core principles" as "working to promote individual liberty, economic opportunity, strong U.S. global leadership, and limited but effective government."

Go easy on the gas, Bush tells US :

2005-09-28T04:13:00.000-07:00

Go easy on the gas, Bush tells US : Mail & Guardian Online

United States President George Bush is calling on Americans to conserve petrol by doing less driving, in the wake of the two hurricanes which have curtailed oil production and supply along the Gulf coast. He also issued a directive for federal agencies to reduce energy consumption, urging employees to share cars or use public transport.

Speaking after a briefing at the energy department in Washington, Bush said on Monday that it was up to all Americans to "pitch in" by being better conservers of energy: "I mean, people just need to recognise that these storms have caused disruption and that if they're able to maybe not drive ... on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful.

"If it makes sense for the citizen out there to curtail non-essential travel, it darn sure makes sense for federal employees ... We can encourage employees to car pool or use mass transit, and we can shift peak electricity use to off-peak hours. There's ways for the federal government to lead when it comes to conservation," he said.

The White House said Bush had instructed agency and department heads that the federal government must "lead by example and further contribute to the relief effort by reducing its own fuel use during this difficult time".

He told the heads to report to him within 30 days, and describe the energy conservation steps they had taken. The White House added on Monday that it was also taking steps to reduce its own energy use -- for example, by looking at shortening Bush's motorcade, which typically has dozens of motorcycle outriders, several gas-guzzling vans, SUVs, Bush's limousine, and an identical limo put in as a decoy.

Fuel consumption is even higher on Bush's cross-country travels -- on Tuesday made his seventh trip to the Gulf since Katrina struck -- which include flights on Air Force One as well as helicopters for the president, his staff, secret service agents, and the press corps that accompanies him. The air force recently estimated fuel costs for Air Force One at $6 029 per hour. Bush was also said to be reminding staff to turn off lights.

But Republican leaders in Congress have infuriated environmental groups by pushing policies offering tax breaks to oil companies, and relaxing rules on drilling. "The hurricanes are being used as cover to attack vital environmental and health requirements before anybody realises what they are doing," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

In Congress, Republicans prepared to move forward on Wednesday with energy legislation to provide tax breaks to oil companies engaged in refinery expansion and construction. More controversially, two House of Representative committees are expected to push forward with proposals -- blocked in the past because of environmental concerns -- to allow states to opt out of Congressional bans on coastal oil-drilling, and another proposal to allow drilling in the Arctic national refuge.

A spokesperson for the environmentalist Sierra Club said on Tuesday: "The Republican leadership in Congress is already using the tragedy of Katrina and Rita as an excuse to advance their narrow political agenda and renew calls for another polluting energy bill." Other groups criticised Bush for asking for sacrifices on fuel use when the administration failed to make the automotive industry raise fuel economy standards.

Meanwhile, the former head of Fema, the federal emergency management agency, on Tuesday defended his role in responding to Katrina, and put much of the blame for coordination failures on Louisiana's Governor, Kathleen Blanco, and New Orleans' Mayor, Ray Nagin. "My biggest mistake was not recognising by Saturday [two days before the hurricane struck] that Louisiana was dysfunctional," Michael Brown told a special Congressional panel.

Other voices: 'He's the one in a big old jetplane'

It don't cut no ice with me. Look at him [George Bush], he rides around in that damned big old jetplane [Air Force One] and that helicopter [Marine One]. How much damned fuel is he conserving doing that?

He's going back down to Louisiana today, but if he really wanted to make a difference, why doesn't he stay here and stop getting in the way? He's like a big old oil baron anyway. What does he care? Right now I think he's just trying to raise his own image through everybody else's pockets.

What am I gonna do? I have to get to work. I drive in from Gettysburg every day, near enough a 100-mile (160km) round trip, and there ain't no other way I'm going to get here. But the price of gas is ridiculous. It must be a dollar more than it was this time last year. You see these people round here, these yuppies in their big old SUVs cutting you up when they go round corners, I can see the case for making them conserve fuel. But they won't. They can afford it. Even if gas goes up to $5 a gallon, they'll complain about it, but they'll still pay for it.

Paid finger-pointer: Brown's employment keeps tarnish on FEMA

2005-09-28T04:09:00.000-07:00

The Federal Emergency Management Agency acquired a tarnished image after Hurricane Katrina, and it has not distinguished itself with its performance after Hurricane Rita. The retention of former director Michael Brown shows the administration still doesn't grasp the cause of FEMA's impairment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Americans were treated Tuesday to the spectacle of ex-FEMA director Michael Brown leading off a televised congressional investigation of the botched federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Brown laid down a barrage of blame for just about everybody involved but himself and the president. Brown, the longtime buddy of the previous FEMA director, Joe Allbaugh, and a former supervisor of Arabian horse shows, has something in common with President Bush: a reluctance to own up to failure.

After criticizing Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Brown even took a potshot at the Homeland Security bureaucracy for failing to budget for needed disaster response equipment. As for his own responsibility for the delay in getting federal manpower and assistance into the storm zone, the best Brown could come up with was not recognizing that Louisiana authorities were dysfunctional and not calling enough media briefings.

Although the president relieved Brown of his responsibilities and named an acting director of FEMA earlier this month, the man he nicknamed "Brownie" continues to draw his full salary, and his resignation will not take effect for at least two weeks, according to Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke. The official rationale is that Brown can provide federal officials with his expertise and views on his experiences during Hurricane Katrina.

If Brown's expertise has helped during the subsequent Hurricane Rita episode, it has not been apparent in East Texas. An angry Jefferson County Judge Carl Griffith blasted the federal relief effort for failing to deliver promised fuel, food and generators. He even suggested that local law enforcement should seize the supplies from the feds if necessary.

In Washington, both Republicans and Democrats criticized Brown. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., contrasted Brown's performance as FEMA director with that of New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani during the 2001 terrorist attack.

Brown responded, "So I guess you want me to be the superhero, to step in there and take everyone out of New Orleans."

"What I wanted you to do was do your job and coordinate," Shays answered.

It seems Brown's continuing FEMA duties include pointing fingers everywhere except where the blame for the woeful federal response belongs. He and other unqualified political appointees failed to provide necessary leadership for an agency crucial to the safety of millions of Americans. For that, they and the president who hired them must accept ultimate responsibility.

WITH BUSH AT THE HELM, ARMED MEXICAN TROOPS CONVOY INTO US FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 90 YEARS

2005-09-08T15:02:00.000-07:00

With King George the Cowardly sitting woozily at the king's throne in Washington, the ultimate affront to our sovereignty has occurred. Posing as "helpers", armed military Mexican troops are storming down American highways, roaming freely down US 183 in Austin Texas.

Any red blooded American should see what this retard in the White House has done...sell our country out to the globalist hordes, slaves of the Copyright Cartel....read the tale of the tape...
http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=94133
Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:53:23 PM ET

NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico (Reuters) - A Mexican army convoy rolled into the United States on Thursday with food, water and medicine for Hurricane Katrina victims, the first Mexican military operation on U.S. soil in 90 years.

Part of an aid package that includes ships and rescue teams, the convoy of 45 olive-green vehicles and some 200 troops went over the Rio Grande into Texas from the city of Nuevo Laredo, witnesses said.

Mexicans, who often have a love-hate relationship with their northern neighbor, are surprised and proud at being able to help in the hurricane aftermath. Mexico has often been the recipient of foreign aid for earthquakes and other natural disasters.

People cheered, waved, honked car horns and rang bells in villages as the convoy snaked up to the border this week.

While millions of Mexicans have trekked north in pursuit of the American dream, many at home are still sore at having lost half their territory to the United States in the 19th century.

Mexico is one of dozens of nations, including some as poor as Cuba and Bangladesh, to offer aid to the United States as it grapples with one of the worst natural disasters in its history in hurricane-swamped New Orleans and surrounding areas.

The Mexican army trucks, filled with of thousands of ready-to-eat meals, drinking water and medical equipment, were searched like regular vehicles as they crossed the border early on Thursday headed for San Antonio, Texas customs officials said.

"It's a good thing because they're taking aid to the victims," said Beatriz Gonzalez, 26, who gave the troops free soft drinks as they stopped for gasoline on the Mexican side of the border.

Troops inside the trucks were given malaria tablets and vaccinations against diseases like Hepatitis, Cholera and Tetanus -- ironically the same shots wary American tourists might get before visiting parts of Mexico.

Mexican forces under revolutionary Gen. Francisco "Pancho" Villa, angry at U.S. support for a rival, staged a small raid into New Mexico in 1916.

They were the bedraggled remnants of an army faction on the losing side of the Mexican revolution but their action is seen by historians as the last military incursion into the United States.

The Villa troops killed several people on a raid on Columbus, New Mexico, prompting Washington to send a larger force into Mexico in retaliation.

The two countries fought a full-blown war in the mid-19th century, when the United States took what are now its southwestern states from Mexico.

Mexico and the United States are now trade partners and President Vicente Fox told Reuters this week that the military convoy was a sign of how close the two nations now are.

THE ANUS THAT SPEAKS IN THE GOVERNORSHIP CONTINUES TO SHAME TEXAS

2005-09-08T13:38:00.000-07:00

THE ANUS THAT SPEAKS IN THE GOVERNORSHIP CONTINUES TO SHAME TEXAS
=========snip====================
Perry criticized for pushing his own charity foundation

Governor's office defends promotion of relief effort

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, September 8, 2005

By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry, in hurricane relief tours around the state, in news releases and on his official state Web site, has urged Texans to contribute to three groups: the Red Cross, Salvation Army and the OneStar Foundation.

The last of those is a volunteer-coordinating effort founded by Mr. Perry. His prominent promotion of his own foundation has prompted some to question whether the governor is trying to benefit politically from the outpouring of sympathy and good works in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"One thing about politicians, you can never overestimate their shamelessness," said Fred Lewis, director of Campaigns for People, a group that favors greater disclosure of political donations and limits on the influence of large donors.

Mr. Perry created OneStar as a nonprofit charitable organization in January 2004 to coordinate faith-based initiatives and promote volunteerism. Its chief executive is Susan Weddington, who left the state Republican Party chairmanship to run the organization.

"There are such heavy political overtones, and when you're governor, you can never separate yourself from the politics to promote an altruistic cause," Mr. Lewis said.

The governor's press secretary, Kathy Walt, said OneStar was the natural vehicle to help coordinate statewide donation efforts and direct individuals and businesses that want to provide goods and materials. She said politics was not a consideration.

"There had to be one place to send people to," Ms. Walt said. "It was the right place within the state structure to go."

Through legislation, the governor placed his divisions of faith-based initiatives, adult mentoring and the AmeriCorps volunteer program in the OneStar Foundation. It operates with federal grant money.

Ms. Weddington and Mr. Perry have also been featured speakers of the Texas Restoration Project, a statewide effort to unite churches and organize their membership to vote in coming elections.

Mr. Perry's picture is prominent throughout OneStar's Web site, which says the foundation was "birthed from the heart and vision of Governor Rick Perry."

Ms. Weddington said that her office is serving as a clearinghouse for evacuee relief efforts, trying to connect donated goods with those who need them through the One-Star Web site's Texas Responds page.

"Obviously, the governor tapped us because we do work for and on behalf of the state," she said. "This is the logical place."

Ms. Weddington said that there is nothing political about the foundation, and that she was chosen for her longtime interest in volunteerism and community service.

Suzii Paynter, director of citizenship for the Baptist General Convention of Texas, said OneStar has done well at coordinating the huge influx of donations. The foundation's Web page has made information available to groups throughout the state, she said.

"Rick Perry has never lacked for photo ops. But there is a huge need for money and donations that can be used in this state that don't need to go through the big national organizations," Ms. Paynter said.

She said that while there might be some political benefit, One- Star is also fulfilling a huge need.

"Does it look like that there might be an incidental self-serving aspect to it? Perhaps. My experience with politicians is that if you give them a handle, they'll grab it," she said.

Ms. Walt said the governor has promoted OneStar not because he established it but because it is well-suited to the task.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-onestar_08tex.ART.State.Edition2.37e1458.html

Grand jury indicts panel connected to DeLay

2005-09-08T12:05:00.000-07:00

Grand jury indicts panel connected to DeLay
Associated Press

USTIN — A Travis County grand jury has indicted Texans for a Republican Majority, a committee formed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, along with the Texas Association of Business in connection with 2002 campaign contributions.

ADVERTISEMENT

The five felony indictments against the two groups were made public today. Neither DeLay nor any individuals with the business group has been charged with wrongdoing.

"All five of these indictments involve the misuse of corporate money to influence Texas elections in 2002," District Attorney Ronnie Earle said.

The allegations reveal that the two groups worked together in a complicated scheme to circumvent the election code and funnel "massive amounts of secret corporate wealth" into campaigns, Earle said.

The charge against Texans for a Republican Majority, known as TRMPAC, alleged the committee illegally accepted a political contribution of $100,000 from the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care.

Four indictments against the Texas Association of Business include charges of unlawful political advertising, unlawful contributions to a political committee and unlawful expenditures such as those to a graphics company and political candidates.

The contributions to the 21 Texas House candidates helped Republicans gain a majority in the chamber in the 2002 election. Speaker Tom Craddick then became the first Republican to lead the House since Reconstruction.

Craddick has been subpoenaed in the investigation and questioned about acting as middleman in delivering the $100,000 check from the nursing home group to Texans for Republican Majority. Craddick has not been accused of illegal activity.

If convicted, the two groups named in the indictments announced today could face fines of up to $20,000 for each charge.

Defense attorney Roy Minton, who represents the Texas Association of Business, received copies of the indictments against it this morning, he said.

Minton said he went with TAB president Bill Hammond to a meeting with prosecutors on Wednesday to try to head off criminal charges against the organization or its officers.

The statewide business group, which is influential at the Texas Capitol, spent about $1.7 million in corporate money for mailings in 2002. The group said it was trying to educate voters on issues, which is legal, not advocate the election or defeat of any candidates.

Earle has been investigating whether the contributions violate state bans against corporate money being spent directly on campaign activities.

The grand jury last fall indicted three officials with Texans for a Republican Majority. John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, D.C., each were accused of one count of money laundering. Colyandro also faces 13 counts of unlawful acceptance of a corporate political contribution.

Washington fundraiser Warren Robold was indicted on charges of accepting or making corporate donations.

All are now awaiting trial.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3345113

NEW ENERGY BILL HIDES TOM DeLAY SWEETHEART DEAL

2005-07-30T11:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050727165629-26334.pdf

NEW ENERGY BILL HIDES TOM DeLAY SWEETHEART DEAL

Majority Leader Tom DeLay may have faded from
the front pages, but he's still up to his dirty tricks.

Congress of the United States -- I am writing to draw to your attention a provision in the Energy Conference Report that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. At its essence, this provision is a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas. The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure. [Click for report]

---

Yesterday, Rep. Henry Waxman revealed that DeLay slipped “a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas” into the energy bill.

But it gets worse. The provision was "mysteriously inserted" into the text of the energy bill "after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure."

More proof that the morals of Tom DeLay has launched an assault on the democratic process.

Here is the anatomy of DeLay’s scam: The 1.5 billion bucks is designated for "oil and natural gas drilling research." Ordinarily, any company could apply for this money directly from the government. But the crooked DeLay does things a little differently. In this case, the bulk of the money must be handed over to "a corporation that is constructed as a consortium." Guess what? As it so happens, "the leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas," Tom DeLay's home district RPSEA "has been advocating such a research program and is in a better position than any other group."

(DeLay testified in support of the program before a House subcommittee last year.) If RPSEA wins the contract they can keep "up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses." And you wonder why Tom DeLay has so many moral and ethic charges against him?

DeLay added the $1.5 billion giveaway after "Democratic negotiators went home Tuesday at 4 a.m. believing a deal had been finalized and the provision wasn't in the bill." The program was not included in the draft version of the bill and a DeLay spokesman lied, saying "he could not explain how the item was added to the final version of legislation prepared by the Senate and House negotiators." (WHAT A MYSTERY!)

The bigger question is: why do taxpayers need to provide another huge subsidy oil and gas corporations? (So they have more to donate to the GOP?) As Waxman said "The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005." Halliburton, which is a member of the consortium, would be eligibled to "receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium."

GOP Crooks Circle the Wagons: Instead taking responsibility for his crooked actions, DeLay makes like the neocons around here and attacked the messenger. DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, ''Henry Waxman knows zero about Texas, zero about energy security, and apparently even less about how a bill becomes law." The RPSEA consortium, for their part, doesn't want to know. Melanie Kenderdine, who represents Gas Technology Institute, a company in the consortium, said, "how the sausage is made is not important to me."

The GOP sees the end coming and is robbing and stealing everything they can before the end. And you neocons go right along with it.

Jerry Sturdivant

WESH.com - News - Wipe-Out: Bush Crashes Bike At G-8

2005-07-07T03:26:00.000-07:00

WESH.com - News - Wipe-Out: Bush Crashes Bike At G-8Wipe-Out: Bush Crashes Bike At G-8
President Suffers Minor Scrapes, Bruises

POSTED: 4:08 pm EDT July 6, 2005
UPDATED: 4:59 pm EDT July 6, 2005

GLENEAGLES, Scotland -- President George W. Bush has some scrapes on his hands and arms after a bike collision with a Scottish police officer at the resort where the G-8 summit is taking place.

The officer has been taken to a hospital. Police said he has a "very minor" ankle injury.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush was going at "a pretty good speed" and took a spill after the crash. He needed bandages from the White House physician. The presidential bike took some damage.

McClellan said the officer is from a nearby town and was on a security detail. He said Bush was worried about the officer and talked with him after the crash, and will likely call the officer later.

Bush attended a dinner hosted by Queen Elizabeth at the Group of Eight economic summit after the crash. He wore a tuxedo and showed no signs of distress.

What is it with Bush and Bicycles...did he fall off the wagon again?

2005-07-07T03:25:00.000-07:00

Bush Says He's Fine After Bike Accident

Thursday July 7, 2005 10:31 AM

AP Photo XGLE102

By TOM RAUM

Associated Press Writer

GLENEAGLES, Scotland (AP) - Fresh bandages on his left hand from a mountain biking accident, President Bush said Thursday he's doing well - and so apparently is the Scottish police officer with whom he collided.

``It just goes to show I should act my age,'' Bush, who turned 59 on Wednesday, joked with reporters.

Bush lost control of his bike Wednesday on a slick stretch of pavement and ran into the local officer, who was on foot, knocking him over.

``When you ride hard on a mountain bike, sometimes you fall. Otherwise, you're not riding hard,'' Bush said.

The spill occurred as Bush was exercising after arriving here to attend a summit of the Group of Eight nations.

Bush, who was wearing a helmet, suffered minor scrapes and bruises to his left hand and arm that required bandages by the White House physician, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. The officer, a member of the police department of Strathclyde who was on a security detail, was briefly taken to the hospital and suffered a minor ankle injury.

The president said he called the officer's cell phone later Wednesday and talked to him as he was on his way home from the hospital. ``He's doing fine,'' Bush said.

``I was less concerned about myself and more concerned about him,'' Bush said.

Bush said the accident happened after he had been riding for about an hour on the grounds of the golf resort here that is the site of the summit. Bush said he was ``flying'' on his bike. ``The pavement was slick...The bike came out from under me,'' he said.

Bush's bike was damaged, requiring him to ride back to the hotel in a Secret Service vehicle.

But the fall didn't affect the president's schedule. Dressed in a tuxedo and showing no signs of distress, he attended the summit's opening dinner hosted by Queen Elizabeth on Wednesday night.

On Thursday morning, Bush appeared alongside British Prime Minister Tony Blair with flesh-colored bandages on two fingers of his left hand.

``I think I found my limitation,'' the president said.

A year ago, Bush was cut and bruised when he sailed over the handlebars while riding a mountain bike at his Texas ranch.

========Snip===========
And..taking a trip down memory lane..here's another story from
CodeWarriorz Thoughts about another of his bicycle crashes..

Bush's "Accident Proneness" Goes back a while
"Bush Bruised Diving To Avoid Truck "

Now, more recently we remember poor little Georgy almost choking to death on a pretzel, falling off the couch and hitting this head...he fell off his bike and scraped his face and hands up....
and looking back to 1999...
"AUSTIN, Texas –– Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential front-runner, sustained minor injuries to his right leg and hip Monday when he dived to avoid a truck trailer that overturned near his jogging path.
Bush was treated at the scene and later traveled to New Hampshire for a scheduled campaign swing, said Linda Edwards, Bush's press secretary.
Staff Sgt. Roscoe Hughey, a 39-year-old Texas Department of Public Safety agent who was accompanying Bush on a bicycle, received bruises to his left side, DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said. He was treated at the Brackenridge Hospital emergency room and released about four hours later, said hospital spokeswoman Stephanie Elsea.
Bush was running on the hike-and-bike trail around Town Lake in downtown Austin when the accident occurred about 12:06 p.m, according to Ms. Edwards and the Austin Police Department,
A truck pulling a dumpster-like trailer was traveling on the street that parallels the jogging trail when the trailer overturned. Debris – including chunks of concrete and wood – were dumped across the jogging path.
"We're not clear what made it lose control, but the truck was out of control," Ms. Edwards said.
She said Bush told her the injuries to his right leg and right hip were suffered when he dived to get out of the way. "
============SNIP=================
For a non-drunk, he sures does have a lot of accidents.

Rogues Gallery

2005-07-07T03:10:00.000-07:00

USED OF FORCE CONTINUUM = ALASKA

2005-07-04T07:50:00.001-07:00

USED OF FORCE CONTINUUM = ALASKA: "USE OF FORCE CONTINUUM
This Use of Force Continuum is from the Alaska State Troopers
The court case is just one of many
to demonstrate what I proffer is true.

What people are not understanding is that the police, firemen, FBI, ect are all members of a paramilitary organization(s) They have been militarized and not not civil officers to which they appear to want us to believe they are. Ask them? I have the commissioning documents on the AST, but this is not included as yahoo will not pass all of the info in one post. If wanted, e-mail and I will forward.

They use the Use of Force Continuum against us. All Police Force types will have a policy and procedures manual, which will have a Use of Force Continuum contained within. You may have to lean on them to produce the Use of Force Continuum parts, as they don't want the public to know who they are and what they are doing.

FROM Alaska State Troopers Use of Force Continuum parts:

1. First read the 107.101 intent of the disclaimer as evidence.
2. 107.020 (A)(1) the purpose of the use of the force is to gain control of a person, ect.
3. 107.020 (B), when practical, a verbal warning should be used before force is being used.
4. 107.020 (C)(1) Can't use force as punishment or retaliation.
5. 107.020 (C)(2) Accomplish the officers 'lawful' objectives, etc including physical control.
6. 107.020 (C)(3) can use any level of force
7. 107.020 (C)(4) The Use of Force Continuum
a. Officer presence, uniform
b. Verbal Commands [military orders in reality]
c. Soft hand techniques - grabbing you and a heel hand hit.
d. OC - pepper spray [you will got to j"

Brent Bozell: Penn and Teller trash Mother Teresa

2005-07-04T07:43:00.000-07:00

Brent Bozell: Penn and Teller trash Mother Teresa
"Penn and Teller trash Mother Teresa
Brent Bozell (archive)

June 3, 2005 | Print | Send

A year ago, I attended the Viacom shareholders meeting in New York. When an investor questioned the propriety of this media behemoth launching a gay cable television network, Chairman Sumner Redstone virtually leapt at the opportunity to defend Viacom's commitment to tolerance and diversity.

But not for Catholics. Viacom has no problem whatever insulting Catholics.

The Catholic League's William Donohue is America's leading watchdog of all things anti-Catholic in the media and the culture. In 12 years at the helm he's seen a lot of bashing and trashing and believes there's been nothing as outrageous as the May 23 edition of the professional magician duo Penn and Teller's aptly titled show "B.S." [spelled out] on Viacom's pay-cable channel Showtime.

While the episode titled "Holier Than Thou" ends with a few smacks at Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, Penn Jillette mostly savaged the world's most beloved woman of the 20th century by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The woman beatified by Pope John Paul II and surely to be declared a saint was known as Mother Teresa. On this Viacom/Showtime program she is called "Mother F---ing Teresa."

The show features notoriously vicious anti-Catholics like Christopher Hitchens and Aroup Chatterjee. Viewers are told that she intentionally let the poor suffer, providing neither beds nor bathroom facilities. "She had the f---king coin and pissed it away on nunneries," says Penn Jillette.

Donohue said it did not bother him they called him "Catholic Boy" on the show, and not even when they referred to him with the F word since he could "only see good in her." But when they mocked the Catholic Church's teaching on the meaning of suffering; when the nuns who worked with Mother Teresa in the Missionaries of Charity were referred to with the F-word and the offensive C-word for female genitalia; and when they said of the poor that "They had to suffer so that Mother [F-word] Teresa could be enlightened," he protested. "They are behaved like monsters ... It turned into hate speech."

This anti-Catholicism is no accident. The Showtime website actually boasts about the aching anti-religious bigotry behind the show. "By their own admission, Penn & Teller have been dying to do a show like this. Confirmed skeptics and pro-science atheists (they call God an 'imaginary friend'), these magicians are big fans of the art of debunking." The Showtime booster copy continues: "As our increasingly anti-intellectual, anti-science culture moves on each day to new crackpot subject matters, Penn & Teller are there to aggressively shoot down whack-jobs and fuzzy thinkers, no matter where they originate."

Isn't Showtime a piece of work? This junkyard of "edgy" programming was the final resting place of "The Reagans," the canceled CBS TV-movie making up vile charges against a man on his deathbed. It has two regular dramatic series celebrating the gay lifestyle, "Queer as Folk" for the men, and "The L Word" for the women. It recently began airing the original movie "Our Fathers," a movie on the Boston pedophile-priest scandals, which even the Washington Post called "Showtime's Unholy Mess." Four years ago at this time, Showtime was airing the original film "Sister Mary Explains It All," starring Diane Keaton as a vicious nun who ruined the lives of schoolchildren.

Now it has the two smart-aleck magicians reviling, with F bombs, the holiest women walking the face of the Earth while attacking the entire concept of holiness as a racket for "whack jobs and fuzzy thinkers."

The Catholic League protested outside this year's shareholders meeting of Viacom in New York, but tight-lipped Showtime could only remark on this inflammatory show by patting itself on the back as a haven for free speech. They claim they're "in the unique position to give artists the creative freedom to express their views," unlike other broadcast and cable networks who avoid "controversial subject matter." Sadly, and predictably, the TV writers who've happened upon the Penn and Teller show haven't exactly criticized their shtick. Associated Press reporter Frazier Moore praised the duo as "sassy secularists in a priesthood of knaves."

Didn't anyone involved in the making of this trash -- the writers, director, producers and the like -- see the wretched ugliness of the product? What of the Showtime front office -- the programming executives, the public relations/marketing staff? In fact, they all saw it and approved it. What of the Viacom leadership, the board of directors? One presumes they didn't see it, so busy are they giving speeches about corporate commitments to diversity and tolerance."
=======SNIP============
Penn Jillette is an asshole. I've said it before, and say it again...he and all
the atheists at Skeptical Inquirer are A-HOLES...yeah Michael Schirmer ..you're an asshole...get used to being called that !

DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Points

2005-07-04T07:38:00.000-07:00

DallasNews.com | News for Dallas, Texas | Points
"But the main Downing Street document does not introduce us to any hidden, arcane or occult knowledge, and it explains no mystery. On a visit to Washington before the Iraq war, some senior British officials formed the strong and correct impression that the Bush administration was bent upon an intervention. Their junior note-taker committed the literary and political solecism of saying that intelligence findings and "facts" were being "fixed" around this policy.

Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. We apparently have an administration that can, on the word of a British clerk, "fix" not just findings but also "facts." Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way – a better term might have been "organized."

Who is there who does not know that the Bush administration decided after September 2001 to change the balance of power in the region and to enforce the Iraq Liberation Act, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1998, which made it overt American policy to change the government of Iraq? This was a fairly open conspiracy and an open secret. Given that everyone from Hans Blix to Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons, it made legal sense to advance this case under the banner of international law and to treat the Iraqi dictator "as if" (and how else?) his strategy of concealment and deception were prima facie proof.

The British attorney general – who has no jurisdiction in these 50 states – was worried that "regime change" alone would not be a sufficient legal basis. One appreciates his concern. But the existence of the Hussein regime was itself a defiance of all known international laws, and we had before us the consequences of previous failures to act, in Bosnia and Rwanda, where action would have been another word for "regime change."

Many in the British Foreign Office, like many in the State Department and the CIA, felt more comfortable with the status quo as they knew it. But theirs is only one opinion among many. How odd that the American left, when it is not busy swallowing the unpunctuated words of the CIA, follows this with another helping of wisdom from the most reactionary institution of the British state.

If such a left is not careful, it will end up consoling itself in futile bitterness and resentment in the way the Old Right used to do: by brooding on the hellish manner in which Franklin Roosevelt told the Japanese to "bring it on" at Pearl Harbor. I favor taking such theories at face value, as a thought experiment, to see how they pan out. It is clear that Roosevelt hoped the Japanese empire would make a mistake and furnish a pretext for war: The plain evidence of this hope is what keeps the conspiracy theory alive.

I rather doubt he would have wanted to start such a war with the loss of the Pacific Fleet, but still, he did think a confrontation was inevitable, as indeed it was. And William Casey may have seen the chance for a double coup: taking credit for the release of the Iranian hostages and discrediting Jimmy Carter in the bargain.

But if it had all come out at the time, and been proved, would this change my attitude to Japanese imperialism or to Iranian hostage-taking theocracy? Certainly not. The demand would be to impeach those responsible in Washington and to form a national bipartisan alliance to fight even harder against our enemies and in defense of our friends.

Full circle, then: The outrage about the Downing Street memo has led Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., to demand that we tell the al-Qaeda forces in Iraq exactly when we intend to give up. Mr. Jones is the right-wing bigmouth who once wanted to rename french fries "freedom fries." He was a moral and political cretin when he did that, and he has been unable to stop being a moral and political cretin since. "
=SNIP=======
This is from Christopher Hitchens, a man who has written a book attacking Sister Teresa, and who argued
against making her a Saint at the Vatican...
Read what he says and consider the source I say!

High court ruling draws fire

2005-06-30T14:07:00.000-07:00

CAPITOL HILL Congressional Republicans are livid about the Supreme Court decision that allows local governments to condemn people's homes to make way for private development.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay calls it a "horrible decision" that leaves everybody's home at risk.

There's now a move to limit the impact of the ruling.

Republicans want to cut off federal funding to any local government that uses the ruling to condemn homes and businesses so they can be replaced by shopping malls and the like.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner says the federal government's money won't be used "to finance taking somebody's property."
+++++++++++++++++SNIP+++++++++++++++++++++++++
HEY RETARD...DELAY...IT WAS "YOUR", PRIMARILY REPUBLI-CON JUDGES DID THIS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!

With our economy in the trash, and our men and women dying in Iraq...why is this ASSHOLE laughing?

2005-06-25T07:55:00.000-07:00

Doing the "Gavel Walk"- by Sensen Baby

2005-06-18T08:32:00.001-07:00

Big F'ing BABY Sensenbrenner takes his toy gavel and runs home to cry to Mommy that the big bad Democrats asked to many "hard questions".

BIG F'ING BABY

DUNCAN HUNTER MUST BE AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS, BECAUSE "HE'S DA QUEEN OF DENIAL"

2005-06-12T11:23:00.000-07:00

DUNCAN HUNTER MUST BE AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS, BECAUSE "HE'S DA QUEEN OF DENIAL"
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
"After Rep. Duncan Hunter's eye-opening description of how terrorist suspects are living high on the hog at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, prisoners from around the world will no doubt be clamoring for a 'gulag' cell of their own.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the House Armed Services Committee chairman began by detailing tonight's dinner menu at Gitmo - which all detainees, including one suspected of being involved in the 9/11 plot, will enjoy. "

DUNCAN HUNTER IS AN IDIOT! HE MUST BE AN EGYPTIAN PRINCESS 'CUZ HE IS DA QUEEN OF DENIAL !

MOST RETARDED SITE OF THE DAY -HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books

2005-06-04T06:02:00.000-07:00

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books
RETARDED PEOPLE GET TOGETHER AND DROOL AT THIS SITE!

RECOMMENDED SITE OF THE DAY- http://Www.GroundZeroforTomDelay.com

2005-06-04T05:29:00.000-07:00

CHECK IT OUT....GREAT!

http://Www.GroundZeroforTomDelay.com

China Threatens U.S. Over Textile Import Restrictions

2005-05-30T10:26:00.000-07:00

China Threatens U.S. Over Textile Import Restrictions: "SHANGHAI, May 30 -- China on Monday threatened to take the United States to a formal dispute proceeding at the World Trade Organization if the Bush administration persists in restricting imports of Chinese-made textiles.
China also rescinded tariffs on its own textile exports, asserting that it will not limit its shipments as it offered to do last week so long as the United States and Europe impose their own restrictions.

Free E-mail Newsletters
TechNews Daily Report
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Personal Finance
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Personal Tech
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

At a press conference in Beijing, China's Commerce Minister, Bo Xilai, unleashed the latest rhetorical volley in an intensifying trade conflict, warning that his government might formally accuse the United States of foul play if the Bush administration does not lift quotas on its textiles.
'This is a legitimate right that China is entitled to and we will resort to this mechanism when it is time to do so,' Bo told reporters, according to Bloomberg News.
That threat came only days before Bo is scheduled to receive his American counterpart, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who is due in Beijing on Thursday to hold talks on the textile conflict and the larger issue of how to lessen China's $160 billion trade surplus with the United States.
The growing intensity of the dispute underscores the degree to which domestic pressures now appear to be leading both sides to push hard, lest they face accusations of appeasement. Analysts emphasized that Beijing and Washington both appear to be engaged in a show of their toughness aimed at assuaging their domestic industries and not in a genuine escalation.
'This is e"

University Mistreated Research Animals

2005-05-30T06:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6795.shtml
By Staff and Wire Reports
May 30, 2005, 04:16
Email this article
Printer friendly page

A seven-month federal investigation has concluded that a state university mistreated research animals, and the school has agreed to pay an $11,400 fine to settle the case.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture cited the University of Nevada, Reno, for 46 federal animal welfare violations between May 2004 and March 2005.

Violations included repeatedly leaving 10 research pigs with inadequate water and housing, poor sanitation at animal care facilities, lack of veterinary care, and failure to investigate complaints of animal neglect.

School officials agreed to pay the fine Friday but said they disagree with some of the agency's findings.

University President John Lilley said in a statement that the school has addressed the USDA's concerns and is "firmly committed to the appropriate treatment of animals under our care."

The investigation began shortly after associate professor Hussein S. Hussein, an internationally known animal nutrition researcher, alleged abuse of research animals in complaints to the USDA last summer.

The Reno Gazette-Journal later reported that 38 pregnant sheep died in October 2002 while they were inside a locked gate without food or water for three days.

Hussein has filed two lawsuits in federal court against the university, Lilley and other administrators accusing them of reprisals and trying to fire him since he complained. Both lawsuits are pending.

==================SNIP===================
CodeWarriorz Thoughts on this? A BIG FUCK YOU TO ANYONE WHO ABUSES ANIMALS.
THE PUNISHMENTS METED OUT ARE NEVER SEVERE ENOUGH. ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO ---YOU ASSHOLES!

DeLay's really pathetic lie

2005-05-30T06:47:00.000-07:00

News Feature
"DeLay's really pathetic lie
By: KOS

Sat May 28th, 2005 at 09:38:59 AM ET

MACON,GA.-Kos- Judge rules that TRMPAC violated state election laws. A state judge ruled Thursday that the treasurer of a political fundraising committee organized by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) violated the state's election law by failing to report $684,507 in contributions from corporations and other donors in 2002.The civil court decision is the first to uphold a complaint by Democrats about the way DeLay and his advisers financed a 2002 political victory in Texas, which ultimately helped cement Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

DeLay claims innocense.

DeLay, asked by a reporter for CNN if the ruling had implications for him, responded: "Not for me. I'm not part of it."

Right...

· DeLay served as a creator, advisor, and fundraiser for TRMPAC. Who said this? None other than Tom DeLay. In fact, according to a report, which ran in the Austin American Statesman on March 10, 2005 - DeLay said that it was his idea to create TRMPAC. Laylan Copelin wrote that report.

· When TRMPAC announced its existence it prominently publicized Tom DeLay as one its key leaders. It's own FAQ clearly indicated Tom DeLay was leading this PAC.

· DeLay's name appeared all over on TRMPAC stationary and promotional materials. Here is a copy of that TRMPAC luncheon flyer prominently featuring the name of Tom DeLay. Here is another sample. Click on the image to see the entire PDF doc:

· TRMPAC records show DeLay was on a conference call of the group's finance committee. Here is a copy of a memo scheduling a conference call connecting DeLay with the TRMPAC finance committee.

· DeLay did fundraising for TRMPAC. Here is a memo from Warren RoBold, a fundraiser for TRMPAC, discussing DeLays role in calling large donors.

The noose is closing around DeLay.

===============================

The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney

(Kos)

by Direwolf

Fri May 27th, 2005 at 08:46:02 PDT

A buddy of mine is currently vacationing in Canada and came across a TV show that was quite critical of Cheney. He sent me a link this website that provides a blow by blow.

It appears this show first aired just prior to the 2004 election and was re-run this week. It also appears this show aired on CBC, which I believe is a major and legimate national news network.

As an aside, I beleive CBC is the quarterback of Newsworld Intl, an excellent network for intl news on channel 366 of DirecTV.

As my buddy noted, you would never see anything like this on any US television network. Furthermore, if they will show something like this in Canada, an ally, imagine how Cheney et al must be viewed in the rest of the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/27/11462/0203 "

Business News: IRS to close 68 help centers nationwide

2005-05-28T12:58:00.000-07:00

Business News: IRS to close 68 help centers nationwideIRS to close 68 help centers nationwide

by Freddie Mooche

Internal Revenue Service help centers in 68 communities are slated to close to help the IRS reduce costs and modernize its operations, the agency said.

If you would like to receive late breaking business news covered by AXcess News then you need to subscribe. Membership is free.

Send this page to a friend
Print This Page

May 28, 2005 (AXcess News) Washington - Internal Revenue Service help centers in 68 communities are slated to close to help the IRS reduce costs and modernize its operations, the agency said.

The Internal Revenue Service is closing the help centers in communities where geographic and demographic factors, employee costs, and expenses were considered in factoring in which IRS help centers would be closed.

The IRS is also moving to coax more tax preparers to use electronic filing services in an effort to manage federal income tax filings in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

Critics say streamlining operations by eliminating IRS help centers forces many income tax filers to seek professional help in preparing their federal income tax forms, putting undue financial burdens on the elderly and low-income wage earners.

The Internal Revenue Service said the closures are necessary though the federal tax agency said that employees there would be offered early retirement, where qualified, and that those remaining would be offered positions in other IRS locations. That no layoffs were expected from the IRS help center closures.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, told reporters that the IRS is forcing consumers to use the Internet by closing the centers.

Kelly said that many of the tax payers who use the IRS help centers do not have access to the Internet.

The IRS said that over the last two years tax payer use of its 400 help centers across the nation had dropped by 19 percent. Use of toll-free phone lines to seek help climbed 7 percent in the same period, while visits to IRS Web sites saw triple-digit increases, the agency says.

The IRS has given no schedule to its 68 help center closings, though some are slated to be closed this fall, the tax agency said.

boycott-riaa.com - Article: MORGAN FREEMAN WARNS OF PIRACY THREAT

2005-05-28T12:48:00.000-07:00

boycott-riaa.com - Article: MORGAN FREEMAN WARNS OF PIRACY THREATMORGAN FREEMAN WARNS OF PIRACY THREAT
Posted by CodeWarrior on May 28, 2005 at 11:17 AM (printer friendly)

Excerpted from http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/19/news/newsmakers/freeman_piracy.reut/index.htm

"CANNES, France (Reuters) - With high-speed Internet connections on the upswing, piracy could hit the movie industry as hard as it did the music business, Hollywood actor Morgan Freeman warned.

Freeman is telling movie makers that they must wise up quickly to stay ahead of illegal downloaders and file sharers who are using new software and high-speed broadband connections.

His company Revelations Entertainment and chip manufacturer Intel Corporation (Research) have set up a "virtual digital home" in a hotel suite to demonstrate to industry movers and shakers in town for the annual Cannes Film Festival the potential of new technology."
-----SNIP---------

I used to LIKE Morgan Freeman...but now see he is just another hack for the Copyright Cartel pigopolists.How about this..

NEWS----CodeWarriorz Thoughts Warns P2P moviegoers about avoiding Morgan Freeman films !

Boycott-MorganFreeman(dot)com ANYONE>?
:)
~Code

Capitol Hill Blue: U.S. a Failure at Protecting Human Rights

2005-05-27T18:30:00.000-07:00

U.S. a Failure at Protecting Human Rights
By DAVID WHITNEY
McClatchey Newspapers
May 27, 2005, 00:05
Email this article
Printer friendly page

Amnesty International challenged the United States on Wednesday to fully investigate the abusive treatment of detainees under its supervision at Guantanamo and in the Middle East, and said foreign governments should conduct their own investigations if the Bush administration and Congress fail to act.
"The refusal of the U.S. government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a cover-up, of these disgraceful crimes," said William Schulz, top executive of Amnesty International USA. Unless top-ranking officials are held to account, he said, abusive techniques "will multiply and spread."

Separately, a bipartisan interest group affiliated with the Constitution Project called for the administration and Congress to appoint an independent commission to investigate abuses of terrorist suspects.

The twin calls ramped up pressure on the Bush administration to expand investigations of alleged abuse beyond the military probes and judicial actions that have already occurred. For months, Sen. Patrick Leahy, top Democratic on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has called for an independent investigation of detainee abuse.

At the White House, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan called the Amnesty International critique "ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity.

"We have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "We have worked to advance freedom and democracy in the world so that people are governed under a rule of law. . . . We hold people accountable when there is abuse. We take steps to prevent it from happening again. And we do so in a very public way for the world to see."

Amnesty International's report came at a time when the United States' handling of detainees has come under fresh scrutiny. Last week the New York Times reported on the brutal interrogation and death in 2002 of an Afghan taxi driver who fell by happenstance into U.S. custody at Bagram Air Base. Wednesday, newly released FBI documents revealed allegations of abuse by detainees in Guantanamo, including several claiming abuse by prison guards of the Quran.

The human rights group made the United States' handling of detainees its No. 1 target in its annual assessment of human rights around the world.

Schulz said the United States merited special attention.

"What the United States does in its own human rights record, particularly if it itself is guilty of one of the most heinous human rights crimes in the world, the crime of torture, that has a resounding effect throughout the world," he said.

The report said Amnesty International had documented cases of torture and abusive treatment such as hooding, beatings, prolonged painful restraint and use of dogs at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. In addition, it said the United States is sending prisoners to third-party countries that practice torture.

Schulz acknowledged that this is not the first time in national history that troops and agents have been accused of committing torture and acts of abuse.

What's new, he said, are the 2002 policy memo by Alberto Gonzales, then White House legal counsel and now attorney general, that appeared to shrink the scope of torture prohibitions under the Geneva Conventions, and a subsequent memo approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that legitimized techniques such as prolonged isolation, stress positions, stripping and use of dogs at Guantanamo Bay.

Amnesty International called on President Bush and Congress to order an independent commission to investigate abuse allegations, and asked Gonzales to appoint an independent special counsel to conduct a parallel criminal investigation.

Among those the group said might be considered "high-level torture architects" are Rumsfeld, Gonzales, former CIA Director George Tenet and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

The military has defended its multiple investigations of abuse allegations, and its judicial system has handed down several prison terms, but Amnesty International said the military brass has gotten off easy.

"It is inexcusable that the few military higher-ups who have been held accountable have received the equivalent of a parental time-out for their wrongdoing," said Schulz, who also suggested that Bush might also merit attention for signing a 2002 memo declaring that Geneva Conventions protection did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.

Additionally, Schulz urged foreign governments to consider investigations of U.S. abuse, noting that the 1998 arrest, on human rights violations, of former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet in London might serve as an example of what could happen someday to a U.S. official linked to torture.

Wednesday's simultaneous call for an independent investigation by the Constitution Project was the work of a small interest group that claims a bipartisan constituency. Among proponents were John Podesta, former chief of staff under President Clinton, former Republican Rep. Robert Barr of Georgia and David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union.

s"

Runaway-Bride

2005-05-27T18:11:00.000-07:00

Runaway-Bride
Warrant issued for runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks; may surrender next week
09:10 PM EDT May 27
LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. (AP) - A warrant has been issued for runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks, but officials don't expect her to report to police while undergoing psychiatric treatment.

The warrant was issued Thursday, the day after a grand jury indicted her on a felony charge of making a false statement and a misdemeanour count of making a false police report.

Since her return to Georgia from New Mexico, she has entered into psychiatric treatment. District Attorney Danny Porter of Gwinnett County said he will wait until she completes treatment before asking her to turn herself in.

"The earliest I would expect anything to happen would be the first of next week," Porter said. He has not ruled out a plea agreement in the case.

The charges arise from her claim she had been kidnapped when she disappeared April 26, four days before her planned wedding. She quickly recanted the story and instead said she abruptly left town because of unspecified personal reasons.

The disappearance prompted a large police and civilian search, as well as attention in the international news media.

She could face up to six years in prison if convicted of both charges, as well as $11,000 US in fines. She could also be ordered to reimburse authorities for the cost of the search, which has been tallied at more than $50,000.

=====SNIP======
GOOD! What a freaking bugeyed LOSER this bitch is!

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Legal Affairs (The Ayes of Texas)

2005-05-27T17:57:00.000-07:00

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Legal Affairs (The Ayes of Texas)

I'll Second That!

State Capitol, Texas Presidential candidate G.W. Bush prides himself on presiding over 121 executions with perfect oversight. State representative Tim Moore wanted to show how careful the legislative process was in the state. He sponsored a bill praising Albert Salvo, a man whose "unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology" had already been noted by the state of Massachusetts. The Texas politicians, never wanting to be outdone by any state, unanimously passed a resolution praising Albert Salvo. Salvo is better known as The Boston Strangler.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Collected on the Internet, 1999]

Representative Tim Moore sponsored a resolution in the Texas House of Representatives in Austin, Texas calling on the House to commend Albert de Salvo for his unselfish service to "his country, his state and his community." The resolution stated that "this compassionate gentleman's dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology." The resolution was passed unanimously. Representative Moore then revealed that he had only tabled the motion to show how the legislature passes bills and resolutions often without reading them or understanding what they say. Albert de Salvo was the Boston Strangler.

Origins: Some
of these outrageous stories have to be true, and this is one of them (despite the misspellings and exaggerations).

Back in 1971, Rep. Tom Moore, Jr. of Waco wanted to demonstrate that his fellow legislators in the Texas House of Representatives often passed bills and resolutions without fully reading or understanding them. So, he sponsored a resolution commending Albert de Salvo for his unselfish service to "his county, his state and his community." It read, in part:

This compassionate gentleman's dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology.
The joke, of course, was that Albert de Salvo was more commonly known as the Boston Strangler, responsible for the murders of thirteen women in the Boston area between 1962 and 1964. (Technically, de Salvo was never convicted of or tried for any of these killings. He was sentenced to life in prison for sexual assaults on several other women and confessed to the thirteen murders as well. He was stabbed to death in prison in 1973, and whether he actually committed the murders he confessed to has been a subject of controversy ever since.) As he expected, Moore saw his resolution passed unanimously; he then withdrew it and explained that he had only offered the motion to demonstrate a point. (A bit of sardonic humor offered at the time claimed that perhaps Moore was wrong; maybe the legislators had been paying attention.)

Although we would hope our elected representatives would pay enough attention to their jobs not to pass resolutions commending serial killers, Moore's stunt wasn't as outrageous as it seems. Federal and state legislators see a steady stream of resolutions that have no legal impact and are offered mostly as public relations measures on behalf of one group or another. Poring over each and every one would take an inordinate amount of a legislator's time (especially in states like Texas where the legislature was often in session for only a few brief periods each year, creating a large number of bills and resolutions to be voted upon in a very short time.) If your fellow legislator introduces a resolution to honor this person or that group, you're expected to rubber stamp it as a gesture of good will; after all, he'll return the favor when you need to boost your popularity with your constituents by extending similar honors to some of them. This may not be an ideal system, but little in politics is.

The invocation of Governor George W. Bush's name at the beginning of this piece makes little sense other than as a pre-election attempt to malign him by linking his name to an absurd piece of legislative business, since Rep. Moore's resolution was introduced decades before Bush was elected governor of Texas.

HoustonChronicle.com - Law is clear: Statutes ban use of corporate cash to affect elections

2005-05-27T04:22:00.000-07:00

HoustonChronicle.com - Law is clear: Statutes ban use of corporate cash to affect elections: "Law is clear"

Law is clear

Texas statutes ban the use of corporate cash to affect the outcome of elections.
Earlier in the legislative session, some legislators argued that the state's law banning corporate and union campaign contributions was so vague as to be unenforceable. Simultaneously, they opposed a bill that would make the law's meaning indisputable.

State District Judge Joe Hart ruled Thursday, in effect, that the law is clear enough as it stands: Hundreds of thousands of unreported corporate and individual donations to Texans for a Republican Majority were used to affect the outcome of Texas House elections in 2002. More than $600,000 in donations and corresponding expenditures should have been reported to the Texas Ethics Commission, but were not. By extension, corporate donations that need to be reported are the same sort of donations banned by law.

The judge's ruling came in a civil lawsuit filed by five losing Democratic candidates against Bill Ceverha, treasurer of the political action committee attached to Texans for a Republican Majority. Ceverha's attorney defended the use of corporate money and complained, with some accuracy, that the Democrats were sore losers. But the foul mood and resentment of the plaintiffs do not excuse wrongdoing by the defendant. If they did, no defendant would be found liable.

Officials of the political action committee helped the plaintiffs to prove their case when they sent letters to corporate donors vowing that the money they gave would be used to help Republican candidates.

The civil suit is separate from the indictments of three TRMPAC officials and eight corporations in connection with an investigation of alleged campaign violations by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. However, Judge Hart's ruling bolsters Earle's case that the use of corporate cash to win Texas House elections is improper and illegal.

Rep. who filed successful ethics complaint against DeLay says 'web is getting bigger'

2005-05-27T03:24:00.000-07:00

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/chris_bell_responds_TRMPAC_526

By John Byrne | RAW STORY
Advertisement
The former Democratic congressman who filed a successful ethics complaint against House Majority Tom DeLay (R-TX) last year told RAW STORY the ruling against a DeLay political action committee is a sign that DeLay’s case for innocence is hemorrhaging.

“Obviously he was hoping the judge would rule in favor of the defendants and he would have declared it a great victory,” former Texas Rep. Chris Bell told RAW STORY Thursday. “And now I think that he has to realize that his arguments aren’t going anywhere, and the web is getting bigger and bigger.

“I think it also has to be somewhat of a wakeup call for his colleagues that have already been indicted that their arguments could very well fail,” he added. “And if they do, I think that might motivate some of them to start spilling the beans about exactly what transpired.”

Today, a judge ruled that the treasurer of DeLay’s political action committee must return $200,000 in illegally collected corporate campaign contributions.

Bell filed a three-count ethics complaint against DeLay last year, and subsequently lost his seat after DeLay-engineered redistricting. DeLay was admonished by the Republican-controlled Ethics Committee on two counts: making remarks suggesting an energy company fundraiser affected his votes, and abusing his congressional power to have the Federal Aviation Administration track a plane containing Democratic legislators.

The Committee deferred action on a third complaint surrounding improper activity by DeLay’s Texans for a Republican Majority PAC. Bell says he believes the ruling today will kindle that complaint, possibly forcing the ethics committee to revisit his complaint in addition to new charges DeLay faces in lieu of a lobbyist paying his travel expenses.

“Even if the grand jury were not to indict Tom DeLay,” he said, “I think there would be a basis for the ethics committee to take action on that particular count given the fact that a judge has now found the conduct was illegal.”

“TRMPAC was Tom DeLay,” he continued. “He created it, and he oversaw, it, and so for him now to pretend like he was blind deaf and dumb to everything that was going on is rather absurd.”

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, the watchdog that wrote Bell's complaint, called for a reopening of last year's charge.

"The House Ethics Committee has run out of excuses for avoiding an investigation into Rep. DeLay’s involvement with TRMPAC," Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a statement.

Jason Stanford, who runs Texans For A Cleaner Congress and an opposition research firm, says Americans should ask themselves what DeLay's involvement is with Republican congressmen on a local level—an effort advocated by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“We’re not surprised here in Austin," Stanford said. "But people all around the country are just getting to know Tom Delay. People are going to have to ask themselves: If he bought a legislature in Texas, what is he doing with my congressman?"

DeLay has sought to distance himself from the committee he created, which has been an major fundraising engine for Texas Republicans.

DeLay has said attacks on his character are attacks on the “free-market” agenda he has pursued, and asserts he has done nothing wrong.

“Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction, and the criminalization of politics,” DeLay’s office asserted in an email to his Texas supporters in April. “They hate Ronald Reagan conservatives like DeLay and they hate that he is an effective leader who succeeds in passing the Republican agenda.”

Of Bell, he remarked, “The Chris Bell matter further exposed the lack of due process in ethics matters.”

Conservatives maintain the push to investigate to DeLay is a coordinated effort by liberals and Democrats to tarnish DeLay’s name and depose him as leader while concurrently seeking to regain control of the House.

DeLay deputy whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) told Roll Call critics are “essentially attempt[ing] to derail what we in the majority are trying to do. This is more than just Tom DeLay; this is the Democrats trying to regain majority status.”

Bell said he hopes DeLay will remain in office until 2006, allowing his constituency to vote in a “referendum” on his actions.

“I certainly want Tom DeLay to stay in office until at least 2006, and I would like the next election to be a referendum on his conduct,” Bell remarked. “For all intents and purposes, Tom DeLay is the leader of the Republican party. It’s his agenda that’s being acted upon in Washington.”

“Given everything,” he continued, “his extremist agenda, his unethical conduct, put all that together and I think the American people will decide to go in a different direction.”

Bell says he is “leaning toward” a run for Texas governor in 2006. He plans to make an announcement in July.

DeLay has not been charged with a crime and congressional immunity kept him from being forced to testify in the suit. His office did not respond to a request for comment.

Democrats in Congress are expected to pounce on the long-awaited ruling.

“This is even more smoke around Tom DeLay's ethical lapses,” a senior Democratic aide told RAW STORY. “If the Ethics Committee was functional, they could get to work to find the fire. The Republicans should stop playing games with the Ethics Committee staffing issues and get to work on its investigations.”

DeLay angered by 'Law & Order' mention

2005-05-27T03:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/27/delay.law.order/WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay reacted angrily Thursday to this week's episode of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" for what he called a "manipulation of my name" in the show.

The show's executive producer responded by accusing DeLay of trying to change "the spotlight from his own problems to an episode of a TV show."

The controversy centers around Wednesday's episode in which a police officer investigating a murder of a federal judge suggested putting out an all points bulletin for "somebody in a Tom DeLay T-shirt."

"This manipulation of my name and trivialization of the sensitive issue of judicial security represents a reckless disregard for the suffering initiated by recent tragedies and a great disservice to public discourse," DeLay wrote in a letter to NBC President Jeff Zucker.

"I can only assume last night's slur was in response to comments I have made in the past about the need for Congress to closely monitor the federal judiciary, as prescribed in our constitutional system of checks and balances."

DeLay has been an outspoken critic of what he calls "activist judges," recently saying Congress must take steps to rein in an "out-of-control judiciary."

Responding to DeLay's attack on "Law & Order," Dick Wolf, the show's executive producer and creator, made no apologies.

"Every week, approximately 100 million people see an episode of the branded 'Law & Order' series. Up until today, it was my impression that all of our viewers understood that these shows are works of fiction as is stated in each episode.

"But I do congratulate Congressman DeLay for switching the spotlight from his own problems to an episode of a TV show."

Kevin Reilly, president of NBC Entertainment, which broadcasts "Law & Order," said the line in question "involved an exasperated detective bedeviled by a lack of clues, making a sarcastic comment about the futility of looking for a suspect when no specific description existed."

"This isolated piece of gritty 'cop talk' was neither a political comment nor an accusation. It's not unusual for L & O to mention real names in its fictional stories. We're confident in our viewers' ability to distinguish between the two."

DeLay has been at the center of a controversy over allegations he went on overseas trips that were improperly paid for by lobbyists. In addition, the House Ethics Committee admonished the majority leader three times in 2004 on separate issues.

On Thursday, a Texas judge found that the treasurer of a political committee founded by DeLay violated state campaign laws, although DeLay was not accused of wrongdoing in the ruling. (Full story)

DeLay did not mention specific examples in his letter. However, there have been two high-profile cases involving judicial security this year.

On Feb. 28, the mother and husband of federal Judge Joan Lefkow were slain by a disturbed person who once appeared in her courtroom. Lefkow has been pushing for more congressional funding to protect federal judges.

On March 11, a judge was killed at an Atlanta courthouse.

There was a storm of criticism against DeLay when he announced the need for Congress to more closely oversee the judiciary.

DeLay made angry comments March 31, the day Terri Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged woman, died -- two weeks after a court ordered her feeding tube removed at the request of her husband. The congressman argued that federal courts should have intervened to save her.

At the time, DeLay said, "We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

Judge rules against PAC founded by Tom DeLay

2005-05-27T03:16:00.000-07:00

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5426119.html

AUSTIN, TEXAS -- A Texas judge said Thursday that the treasurer of a political fundraising committee formed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, violated the state's election law by failing to report more than $600,000 in contributions from corporations and other donors in 2002.

The civil court ruling is the first to sustain complaints by Democrats that improper acts underpinned a Texas political victory engineered by DeLay and his advisers, which had the effect of cementing Republican control of the House of Representatives.

DeLay was not named in the case and has maintained that he did not play a role in how the group's money was raised and spent, but he has been barraged on Capitol Hill with allegations of unethical conduct.

The decision was a symbolic victory for DeLay's critics, lending credence to accusations that his allies used illegal campaign finance tactics to win a Republican majority in the state for the first time in 130 years. That in turn allowed DeLay's allies in Texas to redraw congressional districts and elect four new Republican lawmakers to Congress in 2004.

State District Judge Joe Hart said the money, much of it corporate contributions, should have been reported to the Texas Ethics Commission.

Under Texas law, corporate money can be used by PACs for administrative purposes, but not for direct campaign expenses. In his ruling, the judge dealt with the election code reporting requirements, not with how the money was spent.

Hart found that contributions of corporate and non-corporate money totaling $613,433 should have been reported by treasurer Bill Ceverha, along with expenditures of $684,507.

Civil damages

The judge ordered Ceverha to pay nearly $200,000 in damages. It will be divided among those who brought the lawsuit against Ceverha -- five Democrats who lost state legislative races in 2002. Ceverha's lawyers argued in court that the PAC operated legally despite confusing campaign funding laws.

The civil case is separate from a criminal investigation being conducted by the district attorney in Austin into whether the PAC funneled illegal corporate contributions to GOP candidates for the state Legislature. Three of DeLay's top fundraisers and eight corporations were indicted last year. Ceverha has not been charged.

Hart's decision focused on the liability of the committee's treasurer and did not mention DeLay, who has denied involvement in any improprieties.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the judge's decision provided a foundation for future court rulings adverse to DeLay's committee and those connected to it.

"It sheds light on the illegal acts of Texans for a Republican Majority," said attorney Cris Feldman. "This is only one part of the larger battle."

The lawyers noted in particular that Hart did not accept the two principal defenses claimed by the Texas committee, namely that the election law requiring official disclosure of the contributions was unconstitutional and that the corporate funds were in any event used for purposes that made them both legal and unreportable under the complicated Texas elections law.

Ceverha lawyer Terry Scarborough said the case will be appealed, and he suggested that the Democrats are mostly just angry over losing the elections.

"Our client was exercising his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association," Scarborough said in a statement. "These are the most fundamental constitutional rights that we, as citizens, enjoy and cherish."

Legal scholars were skeptical that Ceverha would be able to successfully appeal on First Amendment grounds because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 that upheld the legality of banning corporate campaign donations.

But his appeal is only a small part of the legal landscape involving the Texas political committee. Much of the lawsuit has been postponed pending the outcome of the criminal trial in Austin, and at least two other civil cases involving campaign finance law and the political action committee that are underway.

In addition to the inquiries into campaign finance violations in Texas, DeLay is preparing to be investigated by Congress for possible ethics violations involving overseas trips arranged by lobbyists. His supporters, arguing that the congressman is the victim of a partisan witch hunt, say Democrats are acting out of desperation after watching DeLay's political successes.

Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

2005-05-25T18:58:00.001-07:00

Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

John Plunkett
Wednesday May 25, 2005

Clean-up TV campaigners seeking succour in Ofcom's new broadcasting rules suffered an immediate blow today when the regulator gave the all-clear to programmes about "sex with animals".
The comments by Richard Hooper, the Ofcom deputy chairman, came at the unveiling of its long-awaited new broadcasting code and will have had the regulator's spin doctors holding their heads in their hands.

Although Mr Hooper was at pains to point out that the new regulations will not give carte blanche to broadcasters, he said certain offensive material would be OK as long as it was shown at the right time and with suitable warnings.

"[What about] a programme about sex with animals? Yes, it's potentially possible. It all comes down to context," he said.

The new code, which will apply across all TV and radio networks, allows broadcasters to "transmit challenging material, even that which may be considered offensive by some, provided it is editorially justified and the audience given appropriate information".

Mr Hooper's comments recalled Channel 4 bestiality documentary, Animal Passions, which featured a man who admitted have sex with his pony and a woman who had sex with her dog.

Although it was cleared by Ofcom last year, it generated 75 complaints from viewers who said it "normalised bestiality" and could encourage copycat behaviour.

The broadcasting code is intended to give broadcasters more "creative freedom" and allow audiences more responsibility in deciding what they watch.

"Freedom of expression does not necessarily mean swearing and offensive language," said Mr Hooper.

"A lot of things have to be taken into account if something is to be seen as generally acceptable. In certain circumstances the c-word is acceptable, and in certain circumstances it is not. What we have done is codify that. That is nothing new."

Ofcom has drawn up a 117-word definition of "context" that broadcasters can use to justify the depiction of sex or violence and the use of bad language, including the time the programme was shown, the channel on which it was broadcast, the size of the audience and whether viewers were warned about the content.

"It's about telling the punter what they are going to get before they get it," said Mr Hooper. He said The Thick of It, Armando Ianucci's acclaimed political satire which began on BBC4, last week "had a quite clear statement before it about the sort of language viewers were going to hear. We are very keen that broadcasters do that."

Tim Suter, the senior partner for content and standards at Ofcom, said previous broadcast regulation had been "about stopping things. The new regime is about what [broadcasters] need in place in order to allow material to be broadcast."

"We are moving into a world which recognises the different responsibilities of the different players. Broadcasters are responsible for what they broadcast, and audiences are responsible for what they consume."

Mr Suter said the new rules leaned towards the "lighter touch" regulation previously seen in the radio industry. "Freedom of expression with editorial justification - that is the central idea."

The new code will also allow companies to sponsor an entire channel, although the proposals still need to go to consultation.

Steve Roberts: DeLay Deserves Jail

2005-05-24T18:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/23/94946.shtml

In yet another sign that mainstream media bias has spun wildly out of control, veteran reporter Steve Roberts blasted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Monday, saying he agreed with DNC chairman Howard Dean that the top Republican deserves to go to jail.

Asked if Dean had "gone overboard" yesterday by calling for DeLay's immediate imprisonment while insisting that Osama bin Laden get a fair trial, Roberts told WABC Radio's "Curtis & Kuby":

"I don't think you can go overboard when it comes to Tom DeLay. ... I think almost anything you say about Tom DeLay is justified."
Roberts continued, "I wouldn't say that about any other Republican, but I'd say it about Tom DeLay."

Astounded by Roberts' statement, Curtis Sliwa pressed: "You think when it comes to Tom DeLay, [pronouncing a jail sentence for him] is OK - but not [for] Osama bin Laden?"

Roberts admitted: "I was being a little flip, there. ... If [DeLay is] charged with a crime, he deserves a fair trial."

But then the U.S. News & World Report contributing editor added, "I think that DeLay is a bad guy," complaining that he had "tried to destroy the ethics process" and "tried to silence Democrats."

"This is a bad guy who does not understand democracy," Roberts insisted. "Anything political you can say about Tom DeLay - in terms of the virulently negative impact he's had on the culture of Washington - that's true."

Even GOP-basher Ron Kuby was taken aback by Roberts' comments, coaxing the U.S. News scribe to "agree with me that before we move on to punishment for a malefactor, we should have a trial."

Roberts responded: "Legally - absolutely. But politically, Tom DeLay deserves anything he gets. The single most destructive force in American politics today is Tom DeLay."

---------------SNIP==================
AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DeLay 'may end up in jail,' Dean predicts

2005-05-24T18:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05143/508902.stm

'I don't think I'm prejudging him,' Democratic leader says
Monday, May 23, 2005

By Alan C. Miller, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said yesterday that "there's a reasonable chance" embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, "may end up in jail."

Dean, who came under fire as a Democratic presidential candidate last year because he insisted that Osama bin Laden should not be prejudged, said DeLay had already been admonished three times by the House ethics committee for his political tactics and faces a new inquiry to determine whether he broke House rules by taking overseas trips financed by lobbyists. He has not been charged with any crime.

"I don't think I'm prejudging him," Dean said during an hourlong interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." Referring to actions for which DeLay is under investigation, he said, "I think there's a reasonable chance that this may end up in jail. And I don't think people ought to do these kinds of things in public service."

This was not the first time that Dean had made such statements. The onetime Vermont governor, who was elected party chairman in February, told the Massachusetts state Democratic convention two weeks ago that DeLay "ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers."

Dean's remarks yesterday on NBC prompted a derisive response from DeLay's spokesman.

"Leading a party with no ideas, no solutions, and no agenda, Howard Dean's latest antics, which previously earned a rebuke from his own party, shows the sad state the Democrats have sunk to," said Dan Allen, DeLay's press secretary.

Allen was referring to comments by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., himself a frequent DeLay critic, who said after Dean's Massachusetts appearance that it was wrong for the party chairman to talk about the House's second-ranking leader "as a criminal" or make reference to "his jail sentence."

DeLay, who has said he is looking forward to proving his innocence, has asserted that the Democrats and the media have targeted him in an effort to undermine the conservative agenda.

The trips in question include a 10-day visit to England and Scotland in 2000 arranged by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist with close ties to DeLay who is under investigation for his representation of American Indian tribes that paid him tens of millions of dollars. DeLay's attorney has said the lawmaker believed the trip was paid for by a conservative think tank and not by lobbyists.

House ethics rules prohibit lawmakers from allowing lobbyists to pay their expenses.

During his presidential candidacy last year, Dean refused to say whether bin Laden should be tried in the United States and executed as a terrorist. He said bin Laden was "very likely to be found guilty," but added, "We should do our best to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Dean and the Democrats have made no secret of their intent to exploit the political and ethical controversies surrounding DeLay in the 2006 midterm elections.

==========snip================
Your lips to God's ear Dr. Dean!

HOWARD DEAN ROCKS!

2005-05-24T18:16:00.000-07:00

Looks like Dr. Howard Dean gave one heck of an interview on Meet the Press yesterday. For your reading pleasure:

DR. DEAN: As I said before, we're not speculating here. Three of the things I've mentioned he has already done and been admonished for by the House Ethics Committee. Look, Harry Truman was campaigning in 1948, and a guy went up and said, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" And Harry Truman said, "I don't give 'em hell. I just tell the truth and the Republicans think it's hell."

There's a lot of problems in Washington now. You know, for example, the administration withheld information--essentially lied to Congress--when they were passing the Medicaid prescription bill. They concealed the cost. Even the Republican conservatives were outraged, as they should have been. You can't do this. You've got to be ethical in government. I think one of the things that we're going to insist on is ethics in government. I'd like some real political and campaign and electoral reform as part of the Democratic Party platform as we offer a different vision to the American people. I think honesty in government's important, and it's something that's lacking in Washington right now.

MR. RUSSERT: But in order to have a civilized debate about these kinds of issues, a robust debate, can we be doing this to each other in the political process? Here's the Democratic National Committee Web site this morning. It is, in effect, a mug shot of Tom DeLay. You can see his height in the back with inches there, a serial number, 18821. Is that appropriate, a mug shot?

DR. DEAN: I don't think it's appropriate for Tom DeLay to be in Congress, Tim. I really don't. Some of his own party has suggested he step aside while this ethics investigation is going on. I think he ought to at least step aside while this ethics investigation is going on. We didn't start this. Look, we're not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans, are doing and we're not going to stoop to the kind of abuse of power, but we are going to be tough as nails. This is a fight for the soul of America between the Republicans and Democrats.

We have an agenda that calls for pension reform, it calls for leaving Social Security alone, except for the tweaks that may be needed to fix it. It calls for real jobs. It calls for closing the deficit. The last president--the only president in the last 35 years to balance the budget was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. You can't trust Republicans with your money. The country is at a crossroads. Are we going to be ethical in government? Are we going to stand up for fiscal responsibility? Are we going to stand up for freedom and personal responsibility?

The president keeps talking about freedom for Iraqis. What about the freedom for Americans to decide their most personal dilemmas in that family? Speaking of Tom DeLay, 14 judges made decisions in the Terri Schiavo case to allow that family to work out their problems through the court system. Tom DeLay didn't like it. He talks about now impeaching judges and removing them if they disagree. We need to retain American democracy. That means everybody has to be part of that American democracy, and, yes, that even includes Democrats and Independents who may not agree with the president.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not retract or apologize your comments about Tom DeLay?

DR. DEAN: Absolutely not.

police state

2005-05-24T18:08:00.000-07:00

Capitol Hill Blue: Police State

Police State
By DAN K. THOMASSON
May 24, 2005, 07:12
Email this article
Printer friendly page

Some really scary things are happening around here these days.
Congress has become a place of great incivility and rancor, which threaten to undermine any hope of legislative remedy to a myriad of problems, from Social Security to soaring health-care costs to immigration to a steadily crumbling manufacturing base once the envy of the world.

But perhaps the most frightening prospect for Americans is an unfettered national police force with the sole discretion to determine who can be investigated as a potential terrorist. That's the impact of little-known proposals to greatly expand the powers of the FBI, permitting its agents to seize business records without a warrant and to track the mail of those in terrorist inquiries without regard to Postal Service concerns.

Because the government can label almost any group or individual a terrorist threat, the potential for abuse by not having to show probable cause is enormous, prompting civil libertarians to correctly speculate about who will guard against the guardians. Up until now the answer was the Constitution as interpreted by the judiciary. But it is clear that sidestepping any such restriction is the real and present danger of the post-9-11 era.

A wise man, the late Sen. John Williams of Delaware, once counseled that any proposed legislation should be regarded in the light of its worst potential consequence, particularly when it came to laws that enhance the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the government at the expense of civil rights. This is most likely to occur in times of national stress, when the Constitution is always vulnerable to assault _ i.e., the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The scenario Williams warned about runs something like this.

You are innocently standing on a street corner waiting to cross when you are approached by a complete stranger who politely, but in a low voice, asks directions to a certain address or area. You, of course, are utterly unaware that the person is under surveillance in a terrorist investigation. You respond in a friendly manner. And although the exchange takes only a few seconds, it is enough to make those following the suspect curious about you. You are identified and a background check reveals that you or your spouse has a relative of Middle Eastern extraction or that you recently traveled to a Middle Eastern country or that you contributed to a charity bazaar sponsored by a church or group under suspicion of passing money through to a terrorist cause.

Suddenly, you are caught in a major inquiry, your personal business records are seized and your mail is tracked. It doesn't take long for your friends and neighbors to learn that you are being investigated, and the result of that is predictable. You and your family are shunned. Your business begins to dwindle and before the nightmare has ended, which can take months, your life is in shambles. The truth never catches up with the fiction and the bureau, which has difficulty in saying the word "sorry," leaves you high and dry, twisting slowly in the wind.

Think it can't happen that way? Well, it does all the time. Ask the lawyer in Oregon whom the FBI misidentified as having taken part in the terrorist bombing of the Spanish railway. Ask any number of persons since Sept. 11, 2001, arrested and detained for months without charges or counsel before they were released.

If that isn't enough to satisfy you about the inadvisability of these proposals, think back to the Cold War days when the most casual acquaintance with a group or person on J. Edgar Hoover's anti-communist watch list could land one in water hot enough to make life miserable for a long time _ maybe even put him or her on one of the infamous blacklists.

If you weren't around in those times, read about them. One thing you will learn quickly is that the sole determination of who or what had communist inclinations belonged to the FBI. Even then, however, Congress was smart enough not to rescind the checks and balances that protect our civil liberties. Federal law-enforcement officers outside the FBI have complained of late about the bureau's penchant for seizing jurisdiction over almost any crime by relating it to terrorism.

Both of these over-reactive proposals are as fearsome as the threat of another al Qaeda attack, for they accomplish the same thing: the intrusion on and disruption of the rights of Americans. Like portions of the Patriot Act, which are rightly being challenged by conservatives as well as liberals, they are medicine worse than the cancer.

Kirk to get vote on stem cell research, but there's a catch

2005-05-23T03:58:00.000-07:00

Kirk to get vote on stem cell research, but there's a catchHere is the backstory to a vote expected Tuesday on a contentious House bill to allow more federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the pivotal role played by Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), and why he was forced to apologize for using a controversial tactic to advance his cause.

Kirk, who represents a North Shore district, is a moderate activist. He's a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an organization of like-minded House members, and belongs to the Republican Main Street Partnership, an outside advocacy group of GOP moderates.

A top priority of the Main Street group is passing a narrowly written law to allow couples to donate surplus embryos stored in fertility clinics to federally funded stem cell researchers. The chief sponsors of this bill are Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), the president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

On Friday, President Bush, who in 2001 limited federal aid to research on 22 existing lines of stem cells, threatened to exercise his first veto if this stem cell measure ever reached his desk.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who opposes Castle-DeGette, is allowing a vote nonetheless. "The speaker had an agreement with Mark Kirk and Michael Castle to bring this to the floor as soon as possible,'' House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters last week. Kirk and company gained the upcoming roll call because a very large group of members backed them. It also did not hurt that as a group, the moderates did not block a budget resolution Hastert wanted.

DeLay, who said he is "adamantly opposed'' to the Castle-DeGette bill, is all for calling it. He does have a surprise up his sleeve. "You've got pro-life conservatives who want this vote,'' DeLay said, himself included.

Ad features Nancy Reagan

"Even though I was an exterminator," said DeLay, referring to his former profession, "my education is in biology and biochemistry, so I think I have a certain understanding about these things, and I am looking forward to the debate so the truth will be told."

Before signing off on the Castle-DeGette vote deal, Hastert negotiated some ground rules with Kirk and the moderates. The moderates will get their up-or-down vote. In return, if they fail, they will not engage in parliamentary maneuvers to lead to more debate and will not back Democratic attempts to attach Castle-DeGette as riders on other bills.

With the pledge of a vote, Kirk and the Main Street partnership geared up a million-dollar media campaign, in part to pressure or persuade Republican lawmakers for their vote. A Main Street print ad featured Nancy Reagan, a staunch backer of using federal dollars for stem cell research.

While Castle-DeGette has about 200 co-sponsors, only about two dozen are Republicans, including Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), a senior member of the Science Committee. As part of the moderates' drive to pass the Castle bill, Kirk, of Highland Park, and Biggert, of Hinsdale, a week ago held a Chicago hearing on the need for federal dollars to underwrite stem cell research.

Clash on floor over polling

Castle supporters Friday estimated they had 230 ayes, with 218 votes needed to pass. However, it takes 290 votes to override a veto. A companion measure in the Senate has 32 co-sponsors, mostly Democrats; a Senate veto override takes 67 votes.

Part of the Kirk and Main Street strategy to win more GOP backing included polling. The partnership helped to pay for polls to determine attitudes toward the stem cell issue, including a survey of 13 House districts represented by Republicans; five of those seats are thought to be vulnerable.

The poll enraged Rep. Ron Renzi (R-Ariz.), who did not appreciate the pressure of having the moderate group survey his district. Last Monday night, Renzi confronted Kirk and had a heated argument with him on the House floor, which was first reported in the Heard on the Hill column in the Roll Call newspaper.

The bigger issue for Renzi is not so much that his district was polled, but that fellow Republicans did it behind his back. Hastert sided with Renzi.

Kirk ended up apologizing to his GOP colleagues.

As for DeLay, the master strategist was working last week on a surprise that could lure votes away from Kirk's cause. DeLay and his sidekicks are coming up with a bill for more adult stem cell research, not as critical as embryonic funding. Having an alternative stem cell bill will make it easier for undecided members to vote no on the more important Castle-DeGette legislation. Too bad Kirk could not make a public assault against this clever maneuver.

Since the Renzi uproar, Kirk hasn't been heard from. He slipped on a muzzle

Bush Condemns S. Korea Stem Cell Research Advances,

2005-05-21T23:01:00.000-07:00

Bush Condemns S. Korea Stem Cell Research Advances, Says He Would Veto Loosening of U.S. Limits

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=778442

WASHINGTON May 21, 2005 — President Bush has condemned stem cell research advances in South Korea and said he worried about living in a world in which human cloning was condoned. He said he would veto any legislation aimed at loosening limits on federal support in the United States.

"I'm very concerned about cloning," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday. "I worry about a world in which cloning becomes acceptable."

"I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is I'm against that. And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it."

Republicans in Congress are sharply divided over the stem cell issue, which could lead to the first veto of Bush's presidency. The president's comments were aimed at putting the brakes on a bill gaining momentum on Capitol Hill.

That bill would lift Bush's ban on using federal dollars to do research on embryonic stem cell lines developed after August 2001. The president's veto threat drew immediate reaction from sponsors of the bipartisan bill, Reps. Mike Castle, R-Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

Castle said the legislation would not allow the cloning of embryos or embryo destruction. Instead, it would let government-funded researchers work with stem cells culled from embryos left over from fertility treatments.

"The bottom line is when a couple has decided to discard their excess embryos, they are either going to be discarded as medical waste or they can be donated for research," Castle said.

DeGette protested too. "It's disappointing that the president would threaten to use his first veto on a bill that holds promise for cures to diseases that affect millions of Americans," DeGette said. "Support for expanding federal stem cell research in an ethical manner remains strong in Congress."

Stem cells are building blocks that give rise to every tissue in the body. Supporters of embryo stem cell research, including former first lady Nancy Reagan, say it could lead to cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other degenerative brain and nerve diseases.

more on delay's butt buddy, georgie porgie, the idiot king

2005-05-21T22:55:00.000-07:00

OK..JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT...SCIENCE IS "BAD...BAD"...ACCORDING TO THAT ASS CLOWN BUSHY....AND IF IT HELPS PEOPLE...HE MUST CONDEMN IT. OK...I JUST WANTED TO GET ALL THIS STRAIGHT FOR THE RECORD.

BILL MOYERS SPEAKS OUT

2005-05-21T07:24:00.000-07:00

Moyers Addresses PBS Coup

By Bill Moyers, AlterNet. Posted May 17, 2005.

In this highly anticipated speech the veteran public broadcaster takes on the PBS coup and its right-wing engineers who are 'squealing like a stuck pig.'

I can't imagine better company on this beautiful Sunday morning in St. Louis. You're church for me today, and there's no congregation in the country where I would be more likely to find more kindred souls than are gathered here.

There are so many different vocations and callings in this room -- so many different interests and aspirations of people who want to reform the media -- that only a presiding bishop like Bob McChesney with his great ecumenical heart could bring us together for a weekend like this.

What joins us all under Bob's embracing welcome is our commitment to public media. Pat Aufderheide got it right, I think, in the recent issue of In These Times when she wrote: "This is a moment when public media outlets can make a powerful case for themselves. Public radio, public TV, cable access, public DBS channels, media arts centers, youth media projects, nonprofit Internet news services ... low-power radio and webcasting are all part of a nearly invisible feature of today's media map: the public media sector. They exist not to make a profit, not to push an ideology, not to serve customers, but to create a public -- a group of people who can talk productively with those who don't share their views, and defend the interests of the people who have to live with the consequences of corporate and governmental power."

She gives examples of the possibilities. "Look at what happened," she said, "when thousands of people who watched Stanley Nelson's The Murder of Emmett Till on their public television channels joined a postcard campaign that re-opened the murder case after more than half a century. Look at NPR's courageous coverage of the Iraq war, an expensive endeavor that wins no points from this administration. Look at Chicago Access Network's Community Forum, where nonprofits throughout the region can showcase their issues and find volunteers."

The public media, she argues, for all our flaws, are a very important resource in a noisy and polluted information environment.

You can also take wings reading Jason Miller's May 4 article on Z Net about the mainstream media. While it is true that much of the mainstream media is corrupted by the influence of government and corporate interests, Miller writes, there are still men and women in the mainstream who practice a high degree of journalistic integrity and who do challenge us with their stories and analysis.

But the real hope "lies within the internet with its 2 billion or more Web sites providing a wealth of information drawn from almost unlimited resources that span the globe. ... If knowledge is power, one's capacity to increase that power increases exponentially through navigation of the Internet for news and information."

Surely this is one issue that unites us as we leave here today. The fight to preserve the web from corporate gatekeepers joins media, reformers, producers and educators -- and it's a fight that has only just begun.

I want to tell you about another fight we're in today. The story I've come to share with you goes to the core of our belief that the quality of democracy and the quality of journalism are deeply entwined. I can tell this story because I've been living it. It's been in the news this week, including reports of more attacks on a single journalist -- yours truly -- by the right-wing media and their allies at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

As some of you know, CPB was established almost 40 years ago to set broad policy for public broadcasting and to be a firewall between political influence and program content. What some on this board are now doing today -- led by its chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson -- is too important, too disturbing and yes, even too dangerous for a gathering like this not to address.

We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable.

Let me assure you that I take in stride attacks by the radical right-wingers who have not given up demonizing me although I retired over six months ago. They've been after me for years now, and I suspect they will be stomping on my grave to make sure I don't come back from the dead.

I should remind them, however, that one of our boys pulled it off some 2,000 years ago -- after the Pharisees, Sadducees and Caesar's surrogates thought they had shut him up for good. Of course I won't be expecting that kind of miracle, but I should put my detractors on notice: They might just compel me out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair.

Who are they? I mean the people obsessed with control, using the government to threaten and intimidate. I mean the people who are hollowing out middle-class security even as they enlist the sons and daughters of the working class in a war to make sure Ahmed Chalabi winds up controlling Iraq's oil. I mean the people who turn faith-based initiatives into a slush fund and who encourage the pious to look heavenward and pray so as not to see the long arm of privilege and power picking their pockets. I mean the people who squelch free speech in an effort to obliterate dissent and consolidate their orthodoxy into the official view of reality from which any deviation becomes unpatriotic heresy.

That's who I mean. And if that's editorializing, so be it. A free press is one where it's OK to state the conclusion you're led to by the evidence.

One reason I'm in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn't play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.

Jonathan Mermin writes about this in a recent essay in World Policy Journal. (You'll also want to read his book Debating War and Peace, Media Coverage of U.S. Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era.)

Mermin quotes David Ignatius of The Washington Post on why the deep interests of the American public are so poorly served by Beltway journalism. The "rules of our game," says Ignatius, "make it hard for us to tee up an issue ... without a news peg." He offers a case in point: the debacle of America's occupation of Iraq. "If senator so and so hasn't criticized postwar planning for Iraq," says Ignatius, "then it's hard for a reporter to write a story about that."

Mermin also quotes public television's Jim Lehrer acknowledging that unless an official says something is so, it isn't news. Why were journalists not discussing the occupation of Iraq? Because, says Lehrer, "the word occupation ... was never mentioned in the run-up to the war." Washington talked about the invasion as "a war of liberation, not a war of occupation, so as a consequence, "those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation."

"In other words," says Jonathan Mermin, "if the government isn't talking about it, we don't report it." He concludes: "[Lehrer's] somewhat jarring declaration, one of many recent admissions by journalists that their reporting failed to prepare the public for the calamitous occupation that has followed the 'liberation' of Iraq, reveals just how far the actual practice of American journalism has deviated from the First Amendment ideal of a press that is independent of the government."

Take the example (also cited by Mermin) of Charles J. Hanley. Hanley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Associated Press, whose fall 2003 story on the torture of Iraqis in American prisons -- before a U.S. Army report and photographs documenting the abuse surfaced -- was ignored by major American newspapers. Hanley attributes this lack of interest to the fact that "it was not an officially sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source."

Furthermore, Iraqis recounting their own personal experience of Abu Ghraib simply did not have the credibility with Beltway journalists of American officials denying that such things happened. Judith Miller of The New York Times, among others, relied on the credibility of official but unnamed sources when she served essentially as the government stenographer for claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

These "rules of the game" permit Washington officials to set the agenda for journalism, leaving the press all too often simply to recount what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to critical scrutiny. Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers, sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading.

I decided long ago that this wasn't healthy for democracy. I came to see that "news is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity." In my documentaries -- whether on the Watergate scandals 30 years ago or the Iran-Contra conspiracy 20 years ago or Bill Clinton's fundraising scandals 10 years ago or, five years ago, the chemical industry's long and despicable cover-up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products from its workers, I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference.

I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.

This is always hard to do, but it has never been harder than today. Without a trace of irony, the powers-that-be have appropriated the newspeak vernacular of George Orwell's 1984. They give us a program vowing "No Child Left Behind," while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged kids. They give us legislation cheerily calling for "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" that give us neither. And that's just for starters.

In Orwell's 1984, the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society's dictionary, explains to the protagonist Winston, "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy -- or worse.

I learned about this the hard way. I grew up in the South, where the truth about slavery, race, and segregation had been driven from the pulpits, driven from the classrooms and driven from the newsrooms. It took a bloody Civil War to bring the truth home, and then it took another hundred years for the truth to make us free.

Then I served in the Johnson administration. Imbued with Cold War orthodoxy and confident that "might makes right," we circled the wagons, listened only to each other, and pursued policies the evidence couldn't carry. The results were devastating for Vietnamese and Americans.

I brought all of this to the task when PBS asked me after 9/11 to start a new weekly broadcast. They wanted us to make it different from anything else on the air -- commercial or public broadcasting. They asked us to tell stories no one else was reporting and to offer a venue to people who might not otherwise be heard.

That wasn't a hard sell. I had been deeply impressed by studies published in leading peer-reviewed scholarly journals by a team of researchers led by Vassar College sociologist William Hoynes. Extensive research on the content of public television over a decade found that political discussions on our public affairs programs generally included a limited set of voices that offer a narrow range of perspectives on current issues and events.

Instead of far-ranging discussions and debates, the kind that might engage viewers as citizens, not simply as audiences, this research found that public affairs programs on PBS stations were populated by the standard set of elite news sources. Whether government officials and Washington journalists (talking about political strategy) or corporate sources (talking about stock prices or the economy from the investor's viewpoint), public television, unfortunately, all too often was offering the same kind of discussions, and a similar brand of insider discourse, that is featured regularly on commercial television.

Who didn't appear was also revealing. Hoynes and his team found that in contrast to the conservative mantra that public television routinely featured the voices of anti-establishment critics, "alternative perspectives were rare on public television and were effectively drowned out by the stream of government and corporate views that represented the vast majority of sources on our broadcasts."

The so-called experts who got most of the face time came primarily from mainstream news organizations and Washington think tanks rather than diverse interests. Economic news, for example, was almost entirely refracted through the views of business people, investors and business journalists. Voices outside the corporate/Wall Street universe -- nonprofessional workers, labor representatives, consumer advocates and the general public were rarely heard. In sum, these two studies concluded, the economic coverage was so narrow that the views and the activities of most citizens became irrelevant.

All this went against the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I know. I was there. As a young policy assistant to President Johnson, I attended my first meeting to discuss the future of public broadcasting in 1964 in the office of the Commissioner of Education. I know firsthand that the Public Broadcasting Act was meant to provide an alternative to commercial television and to reflect the diversity of the American people.

This, too, was on my mind when we assembled the team for NOW. It was just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We agreed on two priorities. First, we wanted to do our part to keep the conversation of democracy going. That meant talking to a wide range of people across the spectrum -- left, right and center.

It meant poets, philosophers, politicians, scientists, sages and scribblers. It meant Isabel Allende, the novelist, and Amity Shlaes, the columnist for the Financial Times. It meant the former nun and best-selling author Karen Armstrong, and it meant the right-wing evangelical columnist Cal Thomas. It meant Arundhati Roy from India, Doris Lessing from London, David Suzuki from Canada, and Bernard Henry-Levi from Paris. It also meant two successive editors of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley and Paul Gigot, the editor of The Economist, Bill Emmott, The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel and the L.A. Weekly's John Powers.

It means liberals like Frank Wu, Ossie Davis and Gregory Nava, and conservatives like Frank Gaffney, Grover Norquist, and Richard Viguerie. It meant Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Bishop Wilton Gregory of the Catholic Bishops conference in this country. It meant the conservative Christian activist and lobbyist, Ralph Reed, and the dissident Catholic Sister Joan Chittister. We threw the conversation of democracy open to all comers.

Most of those who came responded the same way that Ron Paul, the Republican and Libertarian congressman from Texas, did when he wrote me after his appearance, "I have received hundreds of positive e-mails from your viewers. I appreciate the format of your program, which allows time for a full discussion of ideas. ... I'm tired of political shows featuring two guests shouting over each other and offering the same arguments. ... NOW was truly refreshing."

Hold your applause because that's not the point of the story. We had a second priority. We intended to do strong, honest and accurate reporting, telling stories we knew people in high places wouldn't like.

I told our producers and correspondents that in our field reporting our job was to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. This was all the more imperative in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. America could be entering a long war against an elusive and stateless enemy with no definable measure of victory and no limit to its duration, cost or foreboding fear. The rise of a homeland security state meant government could justify extraordinary measures in exchange for protecting citizens against unnamed, even unproven, threats.

Furthermore, increased spending during a national emergency can produce a spectacle of corruption behind a smokescreen of secrecy. I reminded our team of the words of the news photographer in Tom Stoppard's play who said, "People do terrible things to each other, but it's worse when everyone is kept in the dark."

I also reminded them of how the correspondent and historian Richard Reeves answered a student who asked him to define real news. "Real news," Reeves responded, "is the news you and I need to keep our freedoms."

For these reasons and in that spirit, we went about reporting on Washington as no one else in broadcasting -- except occasionally 60 Minutes -- was doing. We reported on the expansion of the Justice Department's power of surveillance. We reported on the escalating Pentagon budget and expensive weapons that didn't work. We reported on how campaign contributions influenced legislation and policy to skew resources to the comfortable and well-connected while our troops were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq with inadequate training and armor. We reported on how the Bush administration was shredding the Freedom of Information Act. We went around the country to report on how closed-door, backroom deals in Washington were costing ordinary workers and tax payers their livelihood and security. We reported on offshore tax havens that enable wealthy and powerful Americans to avoid their fair share of national security and the social contract.

And always -- because what people know depends on who owns the press -- we kept coming back to the media business itself, to how mega media corporations were pushing journalism further and further down the hierarchy of values, how giant radio cartels were silencing critics while shutting communities off from essential information, and how the mega media companies were lobbying the FCC for the right to grow ever more powerful.

The broadcast caught on. Our ratings grew every year. There was even a spell when we were the only public affairs broadcast on PBS whose audience was going up instead of down.

Our journalistic peers took notice. The Los Angeles Times said, "NOW's team of reporters has regularly put the rest of the media to shame, pursuing stories few others bother to touch."

The Philadelphia Inquirer said our segments on the sciences, the arts, politics and the economy were "provocative public television at its best."

The Austin American-Statesman called NOW, "the perfect antidote to today's high pitched decibel level, a smart, calm, timely news program."

Frazier Moore of the Associated Press said we were hard-edged when appropriate but never "Hardball." "Don't expect combat. Civility reigns."

And the Baton Rouge Advocate said, "NOW invites viewers to consider the deeper implication of the daily headlines," drawing on "a wide range of viewpoints which transcend the typical labels of the political left or right."

Let me repeat that: NOW draws on "a wide range of viewpoints which transcend the typical labels of the political left or right."

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 had been prophetic. Open public television to the American people -- offer diverse interests, ideas and voices ... be fearless in your belief in democracy -- and they will come.

Hold your applause -- that's not the point of the story.

The point of the story is something only a handful of our team, including my wife and partner Judith Davidson Moyers, and I knew at the time -- that the success of NOW's journalism was creating a backlash in Washington.

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party became. That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.

This is the point of my story: Ideologues don't want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right. They embrace a world view that can't be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn't, God forbid.

Never mind that their own stars were getting a fair shake on NOW: Gigot, Viguerie, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Stephen Moore, then with the Club for Growth, and others. No, our reporting was giving the radical right fits because it wasn't the party line. It wasn't that we were getting it wrong. Only three times in three years did we err factually, and in each case we corrected those errors as soon as we confirmed their inaccuracy. The problem was that we were telling stories that partisans in power didn't want told ... we were getting it right, not right-wing.

I've always thought the American eagle needed a left wing and a right wing. The right wing would see to it that economic interests had their legitimate concerns addressed. The left wing would see to it that ordinary people were included in the bargain. Both would keep the great bird on course. But with two right wings or two left wings, it's no longer an eagle and it's going to crash.

My occasional commentaries got to them as well. Although apparently he never watched the broadcast (I guess he couldn't take the diversity), Sen. Trent Lott came out squealing like a stuck pig when after the midterm elections in 2002 I described what was likely to happen now that all three branches of government were about to be controlled by one party dominated by the religious, corporate and political right.

Instead of congratulating the winners for their election victory as some network broadcasters had done -- or celebrating their victory as Fox, the Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, talk radio and other partisan Republican journalists had done -- I provided a little independent analysis of what the victory meant. And I did it the old-fashioned way: I looked at the record, took the winners at their word, and drew the logical conclusion that they would use power as they always said they would. And I set forth this conclusion in my usual modest Texas way.

Events since then have confirmed the accuracy of what I said, but, to repeat, being right is exactly what the right doesn't want journalists to be.

Strange things began to happen. Friends in Washington called to say that they had heard of muttered threats that the PBS reauthorization would be held off "unless Moyers is dealt with." The chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, was said to be quite agitated. Apparently there was apoplexy in the right-wing aerie when I closed the broadcast one Friday night by putting an American flag in my lapel and said - well, here's exactly what I said:

"I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

"Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

"So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo -- the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

"But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

"So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war -- except in self-defense -- is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country."

That did it. That -- and our continuing reporting on overpricing at Haliburton, chicanery on K Street, and the heavy, if divinely guided hand, of Tom DeLay.

When Sen. Lott protested that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "has not seemed willing to deal with Bill Moyers," a new member of the board, a Republican fundraiser named Cheryl Halperin, who had been appointed by President Bush, agreed that CPB needed more power to do just that sort of thing. She left no doubt about the kind of penalty she would like to see imposed on malefactors like Moyers.

As rumors circulated about all this, I asked to meet with the CPB board to hear for myself what was being said. I thought it would be helpful for someone like me, who had been present at the creation and part of the system for almost 40 years, to talk about how CPB had been intended to be a heat shield to protect public broadcasters from exactly this kind of intimidation.

After all, I'd been there at the time of Richard Nixon's attempted coup. In those days, public television had been really feisty and independent, and often targeted for attacks. A Woody Allen special that poked fun at Henry Kissinger in the Nixon administration had actually been cancelled. The White House had been so outraged over a documentary called the "Banks and the Poor" that PBS was driven to adopt new guidelines. That didn't satisfy Nixon, and when public television hired two NBC reporters -- Robert McNeil and Sander Vanoucur to co-anchor some new broadcasts, it was, for Nixon, the last straw. According to White House memos at the time, he was determined to "get the left-wing commentators who are cutting us up off public television at once -- indeed, yesterday if possible."

Sound familiar?

Nixon vetoed the authorization for CPB with a message written in part by his sidekick Pat Buchanan, who in a private memo had castigated Vanocur, MacNeil, Washington Week in Review, Black Journal and Bill Moyers as "unbalanced against the administration."

It does sound familiar.

I always knew Nixon would be back. I just didn't know this time he would be the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Buchanan and Nixon succeeded in cutting CPB funding for all public affairs programming except for Black Journal. They knocked out multiyear funding for the National Public Affairs Center for Television, otherwise known as NPACT. And they voted to take away from the PBS staff the ultimate responsibility for the production of programming.

But in those days -- and this is what I wanted to share with Kenneth Tomlinson and his colleagues on the CPB board -- there were still Republicans in America who did not march in ideological lockstep and who stood on principle against politicizing public television. The chairman of the public station in Dallas was an industrialist named Ralph Rogers, a Republican but no party hack, who saw the White House intimidation as an assault on freedom of the press and led a nationwide effort to stop it.

The chairman of CPB was former Republican Congressman Thomas Curtis, who was also a principled man. He resigned, claiming White House interference. Within a few months, the crisis was over. CPB maintained its independence, PBS grew in strength, and Richard Nixon would soon face impeachment and resign for violating the public trust, not just public broadcasting.

Paradoxically, the very National Public Affairs Center for Television that Nixon had tried to kill -- NPACT -- put PBS on the map by rebroadcasting in primetime each day's Watergate hearings, drawing huge ratings night after night and establishing PBS as an ally of democracy. We should still be doing that sort of thing.

That was 33 years ago. I thought the current CPB board would like to hear and talk about the importance of standing up to political interference. I was wrong. They wouldn't meet with me. I tried three times. And it was all downhill after that.

I was na've, I guess. I simply never imagined that any CPB chairman, Democrat or Republican, would cross the line from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out for the White House. But that's what Kenneth Tomlinson has done.

On Fox News this week he denied that he's carrying out a White House mandate or that he's ever had any conversations with any Bush administration official about PBS. But the New York Times reported that he enlisted Karl Rove to help kill a proposal that would have put on the CPB board people with experience in local radio and television. The Times also reported that "on the recommendation of administration officials" Tomlinson hired a White House flack (I know the genre) named Mary Catherine Andrews as a senior CPB staff member. While she was still reporting to Karl Rove at the White House, Andrews set up CPB's new ombudsman's office and had a hand in hiring the two people who will fill it, one of whom once worked for ... you guessed it ... Kenneth Tomlinson.

I would like to give Mr. Tomlinson the benefit of the doubt, but I can't. According to a book written about the Reader's Digest when he was its editor-in-chief, he surrounded himself with other right-wingers -- a pattern he's now following at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

There is Ms. Andrews from the White House. For acting president, he hired Ken Ferree from the FCC, who was Michael Powell's enforcer when Powell was deciding how to go about allowing the big media companies to get even bigger. According to a forthcoming book, one of Ferree's jobs was to engage in tactics designed to dismiss any serious objection to media monopolies. And, according to Eric Alterman, Ferree was even more contemptuous than Michael Powell of public participation in the process of determining media ownership. Alterman identifies Ferree as the FCC staffer who decided to issue a "protective order" designed to keep secret the market research on which the Republican majority on the commission based their vote to permit greater media consolidation.

It's not likely that with guys like this running the CPB some public television producer is going to say, "Hey, let's do something on how big media is affecting democracy."

Call it preventive capitulation.

As everyone knows, Mr. Tomlinson also put up a considerable sum of money, reportedly over $5 million, for a new weekly broadcast featuring Paul Gigot and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Gigot is a smart journalist, a sharp editor, and a fine fellow. I had him on NOW several times and even proposed that he become a regular contributor. The conversation of democracy -- remember? All stripes.

But I confess to some puzzlement that the Wall Street Journal, which in the past editorialized to cut PBS off the public tap, is now being subsidized by American taxpayers although its parent company, Dow Jones, had revenues in just the first quarter of this year of $400 million. I thought public television was supposed to be an alternative to commercial media, not a funder of it.

But in this weird deal, you get a glimpse of the kind of programming Mr. Tomlinson apparently seems to prefer. Alone of the big major newspapers, the Wall Street Journal has no op-ed page where different opinions can compete with its right-wing editorials. The Journal's PBS broadcast is just as homogenous -- right-wingers talking to each other. Why not $5 million to put the editors of The Nation on PBS? Or Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! You balance right-wing talk with left-wing talk.

There's more. Only two weeks ago did we learn that Mr. Tomlinson had spent $10,000 last year to hire a contractor who would watch my show and report on political bias. That's right. Kenneth Y. Tomlinson spent $10,000 of your money to hire a guy to watch NOW to find out who my guests were and what my stories were. Ten thousand dollars.

Gee, Ken, for $2.50 a week, you could pick up a copy of TV Guide on the newsstand. A subscription is even cheaper, and I would have sent you a coupon that can save you up to 62 percent.

For that matter, Ken, all you had to do was watch the show yourself. You could have made it easier with a double Jim Beam, your favorite. Or you could have gone online where the listings are posted. Hell, you could have called me -- collect -- and I would have told you.

Ten thousand dollars. That would have bought five tables at Thursday night's "Conservative Salute for Tom DeLay." Better yet, that ten grand would pay for the books in an elementary school classroom or an upgrade of its computer lab.

But having sent that cash, what did he find? Only Mr. Tomlinson knows. He's apparently decided not to share the results with his staff, or his board or leak it to Robert Novak. The public paid for it -- but Ken Tomlinson acts as if he owns it.

In a May 10 op-ed piece, in Rev. Moon's conservative Washington Times, Tomlinson maintained he had not released the findings because public broadcasting is such a delicate institution that he did not want to "damage public broadcasting's image with controversy." Where I come from in Texas, we shovel that kind of stuff every day.

As we learned only this week, that's not the only news Mr. Tomlinson tried to keep to himself. As reported by Jeff Chester's Center for Digital Democracy (of which I am a supporter), there were two public opinion surveys commissioned by CPB but not released to the media -- not even to PBS and NPR. According to a source who talked to Salon.com, "The first results were too good and [Tomlinson] didn't believe them. After the Iraq War, the board commissioned another round of polling, and they thought they'd get worse results."

But they didn't. The data revealed that, in reality, public broadcasting has an 80 percent favorable rating and that "the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased." In fact, more than half believed PBS provided more in-depth and trustworthy news and information than the networks and 55 percent said PBS was "fair and balanced."

Tomlinson is the man, by the way, who was running Voice of America back in 1984 when a partisan named Charlie Wick was politicizing the United States Information Agency of which Voice of America was a part. It turned out there was a blacklist of people who had been removed from the list of prominent Americans sent abroad to lecture on behalf of America and the USIA. What's more, it was discovered that evidence as to how those people were chosen to be on the blacklist, more than 700 documents had been shredded. Among those on the blacklists of journalists, writers, scholars and politicians were dangerous left-wing subversives like Walter Cronkite, James Baldwin, Gary Hart, Ralph Nader, Ben Bradlee, Coretta Scott King and David Brinkley.

The person who took the fall for the blacklist was another right-winger. He resigned. Shortly thereafter, so did Kenneth Tomlinson, who had been one of the people in the agency with the authority to see the lists of potential speakers and allowed to strike people's names. Let me be clear about this: There is no record, apparently, of what Ken Tomlinson did. We don't know whether he supported or protested the blacklisting of so many American liberals. Or what he thinks of it now.

But I had hoped Bill O'Reilly would have asked him about it when he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor this week. He didn't. Instead, Tomlinson went on attacking me with O'Reilly egging him on, and he went on denying he was carrying out a partisan mandate despite published reports to the contrary. The only time you could be sure he was telling the truth was at the end of the broadcast when he said to O'Reilly, "We love your show."

We love your show.

I wrote Kenneth Tomlinson on Friday and asked him to sit down with me for one hour on PBS and talk about all this. I suggested that he choose the moderator and the guidelines.

There is one other thing in particular I would like to ask him about. In his op-ed essay this week in Washington Times, Ken Tomlinson tells of a phone call from an old friend complaining about my bias. Wrote Mr. Tomlinson: "The friend explained that the foundation he heads made a six-figure contribution to his local television station for digital conversion. But he declared there would be no more contributions until something was done about the network's bias."

Apparently that's Kenneth Tomlinson's method of governance. Money talks and buys the influence it wants.

I would like to ask him to listen to a different voice.

This letter came to me last year from a woman in New York, five pages of handwriting. She said, among other things, that "after the worst sneak attack in our history, there's not been a moment to reflect, a moment to let the horror resonate, a moment to feel the pain and regroup as humans. No, since I lost my husband on 9/11, not only our family's world, but the whole world seems to have gotten even worse than that tragic day."

She wanted me to know that on 9/11 her husband was not on duty. "He was home with me having coffee. My daughter and grandson, living only five blocks from the Towers, had to be evacuated with masks -- terror all around. ... My other daughter, near the Brooklyn Bridge ... my son in high school. But my Charlie took off like a lightning bolt to be with his men from the Special Operations Command. 'Bring my gear to the plaza,' he told his aide immediately after the first plane struck the North Tower. ... He took action based on the responsibility he felt for his job and his men and for those Towers that he loved."

In the FDNY, she said, chain-of- command rules extend to every captain of every fire house in the city. If anything happens in the firehouse -- at any time -- even if the captain isn't on duty or on vacation -- that captain is responsible for everything that goes on there 24/7."

So she asked: "Why is this administration responsible for nothing? All that they do is pass the blame. This is not leadership. ... Watch everyone pass the blame again in this recent torture case [Abu Ghraib] of Iraqi prisons ..."

And then she wrote: "We need more programs like yours to wake America up. ... Such programs must continue amidst the sea of false images and name-calling that divide America now. ... Such programs give us hope that search will continue to get this imperfect human condition on to a higher plane. So thank you and all of those who work with you. Without public broadcasting, all we would call news would be merely carefully controlled propaganda."

Enclosed with the letter was a check made out to "Channel 13 -- NOW" for $500. I keep a copy of that check above my desk to remind me of what journalism is about. Kenneth Tomlinson has his demanding donors. I'll take the widow's mite any day.

Someone has said recently that the great raucous mob that is democracy is rarely heard and that it's not just the fault of the current residents of the White House and the capital. There's too great a chasm between those of us in this business and those who depend on TV and radio as their window to the world. We treat them too much as an audience and not enough as citizens. They're invited to look through the window but too infrequently to come through the door and to participate, to make public broadcasting truly public."

To that end, five public interest groups including Common Cause and Consumers Union will be holding informational sessions around the country to "take public broadcasting back" -- to take it back from threats, from interference, from those who would tell us we can only think what they command us to think.

It's a worthy goal.

We're big kids; we can handle controversy and diversity, whether it's political or religious points of view or two loving lesbian moms and their kids, visited by a cartoon rabbit. We are not too fragile or insecure to see America and the world entire for all their magnificent and sometimes violent confusion. There used to be a thing or a commodity we put great store by," John Steinbeck wrote. "It was called the people."

MAKES YOU PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN....OR DOES IT?

2005-05-20T04:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116561600&en=8701738ac057aebe&ei=5094&partner=homepage
In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths

By TIM GOLDEN
Published: May 20, 2005
Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.

The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.

Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.

In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner is made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning.

The Times obtained a copy of the file from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths.

Although incidents of prisoner abuse at Bagram in 2002, including some details of the two men's deaths, have been previously reported, American officials have characterized them as isolated problems that were thoroughly investigated. And many of the officers and soldiers interviewed in the Dilawar investigation said the large majority of detainees at Bagram were compliant and reasonably well treated.

"What we have learned through the course of all these investigations is that there were people who clearly violated anyone's standard for humane treatment," said the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita. "We're finding some cases that were not close calls."

(Page 2 of 8)

Yet the Bagram file includes ample testimony that harsh treatment by some interrogators was routine and that guards could strike shackled detainees with virtual impunity. Prisoners considered important or troublesome were also handcuffed and chained to the ceilings and doors of their cells, sometimes for long periods, an action Army prosecutors recently classified as criminal assault.

Some of the mistreatment was quite obvious, the file suggests. Senior officers frequently toured the detention center, and several of them acknowledged seeing prisoners chained up for punishment or to deprive them of sleep. Shortly before the two deaths, observers from the International Committee of the Red Cross specifically complained to the military authorities at Bagram about the shackling of prisoners in "fixed positions," documents show.

Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level Army inquiry last year, Captain Wood applied techniques there that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram.

Last October, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case.

So far, only the seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two Army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter.

"The whole situation is unfair," Sgt. Selena M. Salcedo, a former Bagram interrogator who was charged with assaulting Mr. Dilawar, dereliction of duty and lying to investigators, said in a telephone interview. "It's all going to come out when everything is said and done."

With most of the legal action pending, the story of abuses at Bagram remains incomplete. But documents and interviews reveal a striking disparity between the findings of Army investigators and what military officials said in the aftermath of the deaths.

Military spokesmen maintained that both men had died of natural causes, even after military coroners had ruled the deaths homicides. Two months after those autopsies, the American commander in Afghanistan, then-Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, said he had no indication that abuse by soldiers had contributed to the two deaths. The methods used at Bagram, he said, were "in accordance with what is generally accepted as interrogation techniques."

The Interrogators

In the summer of 2002, the military detention center at Bagram, about 40 miles north of Kabul, stood as a hulking reminder of the Americans' improvised hold over Afghanistan.

Built by the Soviets as an aircraft machine shop for the operations base they established after their intervention in the country in 1979, the building had survived the ensuing wars as a battered relic - a long, squat, concrete block with rusted metal sheets where the windows had once been.

Retrofitted with five large wire pens and a half dozen plywood isolation cells, the building became the Bagram Collection Point, a clearinghouse for prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The B.C.P., as soldiers called it, typically held between 40 and 80 detainees while they were interrogated and screened for possible shipment to the Pentagon's longer-term detention center at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba.

The new interrogation unit that arrived in July 2002 had been improvised as well. Captain Wood, then a 32-year-old lieutenant, came with 13 soldiers from the 525th Military Intelligence Brigade at Fort Bragg, N.C.; six Arabic-speaking reservists were added from the Utah National Guard.

(Page 3 of 8)

Part of the new group, which was consolidated under Company A of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, was made up of counterintelligence specialists with no background in interrogation. Only two of the soldiers had ever questioned actual prisoners.

What specialized training the unit received came on the job, in sessions with two interrogators who had worked in the prison for a few months. "There was nothing that prepared us for running an interrogation operation" like the one at Bagram, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the interrogators, Staff Sgt. Steven W. Loring, later told investigators.

Nor were the rules of engagement very clear. The platoon had the standard interrogations guide, Army Field Manual 34-52, and an order from the secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to treat prisoners "humanely," and when possible, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. But with President Bush's final determination in February 2002 that the Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and that Taliban fighters would not be accorded the rights of prisoners of war, the interrogators believed they "could deviate slightly from the rules," said one of the Utah reservists, Sgt. James A. Leahy.

"There was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war, but nothing for terrorists," Sergeant Leahy told Army investigators. And the detainees, senior intelligence officers said, were to be considered terrorists until proved otherwise.

The deviations included the use of "safety positions" or "stress positions" that would make the detainees uncomfortable but not necessarily hurt them - kneeling on the ground, for instance, or sitting in a "chair" position against the wall. The new platoon was also trained in sleep deprivation, which the previous unit had generally limited to 24 hours or less, insisting that the interrogator remain awake with the prisoner to avoid pushing the limits of humane treatment.

But as the 519th interrogators settled into their jobs, they set their own procedures for sleep deprivation. They decided on 32 to 36 hours as the optimal time to keep prisoners awake and eliminated the practice of staying up themselves, one former interrogator, Eric LaHammer, said in an interview.

The interrogators worked from a menu of basic tactics to gain a prisoner's cooperation, from the "friendly" approach, to good cop-bad cop routines, to the threat of long-term imprisonment. But some less-experienced interrogators came to rely on the method known in the military as "Fear Up Harsh," or what one soldier referred to as "the screaming technique."

Sergeant Loring, then 27, tried with limited success to wean those interrogators off that approach, which typically involved yelling and throwing chairs. Mr. Leahy said the sergeant "put the brakes on when certain approaches got out of hand." But he could also be dismissive of tactics he considered too soft, several soldiers told investigators, and gave some of the most aggressive interrogators wide latitude. (Efforts to locate Mr. Loring, who has left the military, were unsuccessful.)

"We sometimes developed a rapport with detainees, and Sergeant Loring would sit us down and remind us that these were evil people and talk about 9/11 and they weren't our friends and could not be trusted," Mr. Leahy said.

Specialist Damien M. Corsetti, a tall, bearded interrogator sometimes called "Monster" -he had the nickname tattooed in Italian across his stomach, other soldiers said - was often chosen to intimidate new detainees. Specialist Corsetti, they said, would glower and yell at the arrivals as they stood chained to an overhead pole or lay face down on the floor of a holding room. (A military police K-9 unit often brought growling dogs to walk among the new prisoners for similar effect, documents show.)

"The other interrogators would use his reputation," said one interrogator, Specialist Eric H. Barclais. "They would tell the detainee, 'If you don't cooperate, we'll have to get Monster, and he won't be as nice.' " Another soldier told investigators that Sergeant Loring lightheartedly referred to Specialist Corsetti, then 23, as "the King of Torture."

(Page 4 of 8)

A Saudi detainee who was interviewed by Army investigators last June at Guant�namo said Specialist Corsetti had pulled out his penis during an interrogation at Bagram, held it against the prisoner's face and threatened to rape him, excerpts from the man's statement show.

Last fall, the investigators cited probable cause to charge Specialist Corsetti with assault, maltreatment of a prisoner and indecent acts in the incident; he has not been charged. At Abu Ghraib, he was also one of three members of the 519th who were fined and demoted for forcing an Iraqi woman to strip during questioning, another interrogator said. A spokesman at Fort Bragg said Specialist Corsetti would not comment.

In late August of 2002, the Bagram interrogators were joined by a new military police unit that was assigned to guard the detainees. The soldiers, mostly reservists from the 377th Military Police Company based in Cincinnati and Bloomington, Ind., were similarly unprepared for their mission, members of the unit said.

The company received basic lessons in handling prisoners at Fort Dix, N.J., and some police and corrections officers in its ranks provided further training. That instruction included an overview of "pressure-point control tactics" and notably the "common peroneal strike" - a potentially disabling blow to the side of the leg, just above the knee.

The M.P.'s said they were never told that peroneal strikes were not part of Army doctrine. Nor did most of them hear one of the former police officers tell a fellow soldier during the training that he would never use such strikes because they would "tear up" a prisoner's legs.

But once in Afghanistan, members of the 377th found that the usual rules did not seem to apply. The peroneal strike quickly became a basic weapon of the M.P. arsenal. "That was kind of like an accepted thing; you could knee somebody in the leg," former Sgt. Thomas V. Curtis told the investigators.

A few weeks into the company's tour, Specialist Jeremy M. Callaway overheard another guard boasting about having beaten a detainee who had spit on him. Specialist Callaway also told investigators that other soldiers had congratulated the guard "for not taking any" from a detainee.

One captain nicknamed members of the Third Platoon "the Testosterone Gang." Several were devout bodybuilders. Upon arriving in Afghanistan, a group of the soldiers decorated their tent with a Confederate flag, one soldier said.

Some of the same M.P.'s took a particular interest in an emotionally disturbed Afghan detainee who was known to eat his feces and mutilate himself with concertina wire. The soldiers kneed the man repeatedly in the legs and, at one point, chained him with his arms straight up in the air, Specialist Callaway told investigators. They also nicknamed him "Timmy," after a disabled child in the animated television series "South Park." One of the guards who beat the prisoner also taught him to screech like the cartoon character, Specialist Callaway said.

Eventually, the man was sent home.

The Defiant Detainee

The detainee known as Person Under Control No. 412 was a portly, well-groomed Afghan named Habibullah. Some American officials identified him as "Mullah" Habibullah, a brother of a former Taliban commander from the southern Afghan province of Oruzgan.

He stood out from the scraggly guerrillas and villagers whom the Bagram interrogators typically saw. "He had a piercing gaze and was very confident," the provost marshal in charge of the M.P.'s, Maj. Bobby R. Atwell, recalled.

Documents from the investigation suggest that Mr. Habibullah was captured by an Afghan warlord on Nov. 28, 2002, and delivered to Bagram by C.I.A. operatives two days later. His well-being at that point is a matter of dispute. The doctor who examined him on arrival at Bagram reported him in good health. But the intelligence operations chief, Lt. Col. John W. Loffert Jr., later told Army investigators, "He was already in bad condition when he arrived."

What is clear is that Mr. Habibullah was identified at Bagram as an important prisoner and an unusually sharp-tongued and insubordinate one.

Page 5 of 8)

One of the 377th's Third Platoon sergeants, Alan J. Driver Jr., told investigators that Mr. Habibullah rose up after a rectal examination and kneed him in the groin. The guard said he grabbed the prisoner by the head and yelled in his face. Mr. Habibullah then "became combative," Sergeant Driver said, and had to be subdued by three guards and led away in an armlock.

He was then confined in one of the 9-foot by 7-foot isolation cells, which the M.P. commander, Capt. Christopher M. Beiring, later described as a standard procedure. "There was a policy that detainees were hooded, shackled and isolated for at least the first 24 hours, sometimes 72 hours of captivity," he told investigators.

While the guards kept some prisoners awake by yelling or poking at them or banging on their cell doors, Mr. Habibullah was shackled by the wrists to the wire ceiling over his cell, soldiers said.

On his second day, Dec. 1, the prisoner was "uncooperative" again, this time with Specialist Willie V. Brand. The guard, who has since been charged with assault and other crimes, told investigators he had delivered three peroneal strikes in response. The next day, Specialist Brand said, he had to knee the prisoner again. Other blows followed.

A lawyer for Specialist Brand, John P. Galligan, said there was no criminal intent by his client to hurt any detainee. "At the time, my client was acting consistently with the standard operating procedure that was in place at the Bagram facility."

The communication between Mr. Habibullah and his jailers appears to have been almost exclusively physical. Despite repeated requests, the M.P.'s were assigned no interpreters of their own. Instead, they borrowed from the interrogators when they could and relied on prisoners who spoke even a little English to translate for them.

When the detainees were beaten or kicked for "noncompliance," one of the interpreters, Ali M. Baryalai said, it was often "because they have no idea what the M.P. is saying."

By the morning of Dec. 2, witnesses told the investigators, Mr. Habibullah was coughing and complaining of chest pains. He limped into the interrogation room in shackles, his right leg stiff and his right foot swollen. The lead interrogator, Sergeant Leahy, let him sit on the floor because he could not bend his knees and sit in a chair.

The interpreter who was on hand, Ebrahim Baerde, said the interrogators had kept their distance that day "because he was spitting up a lot of phlegm."

"They were laughing and making fun of him, saying it was 'gross' or 'nasty,' " Mr. Baerde said.

Though battered, Mr. Habibullah was unbowed.

"Once they asked him if he wanted to spend the rest of his life in handcuffs," Mr. Baerde said. "His response was, 'Yes, don't they look good on me?' "

By Dec. 3, Mr. Habibullah's reputation for defiance seemed to make him an open target. One M.P. said he had given him five peroneal strikes for being "noncompliant and combative." Another gave him three or four more for being "combative and noncompliant." Some guards later asserted that he had been hurt trying to escape.

When Sgt. James P. Boland saw Mr. Habibullah on Dec. 3, he was in one of the isolation cells, tethered to the ceiling by two sets of handcuffs and a chain around his waist. His body was slumped forward, held up by the chains.

Sergeant Boland told the investigators he had entered the cell with two other guards, Specialists Anthony M. Morden and Brian E. Cammack. (All three have been charged with assault and other crimes.) One of them pulled off the prisoner's black hood. His head was slumped to one side, his tongue sticking out. Specialist Cammack said he had put some bread on Mr. Habibullah's tongue. Another soldier put an apple in the prisoner's hand; it fell to the floor.

When Specialist Cammack turned back toward the prisoner, he said in one statement, Mr. Habibullah's spit hit his chest. Later, Specialist Cammack acknowledged, "I'm not sure if he spit at me." But at the time, he exploded, yelling, "Don't ever spit on me again!" and kneeing the prisoner sharply in the thigh, "maybe a couple" of times. Mr. Habibullah's limp body swayed back and forth in the chains.

When Sergeant Boland returned to the cell some 20 minutes later, he said, Mr. Habibullah was not moving and had no pulse. Finally, the prisoner was unchained and laid out on the floor of his cell.

The guard who Specialist Cammack said had counseled him back in New Jersey about the dangers of peroneal strikes found him in the room where Mr. Habibullah lay, his body already cold.

"Specialist Cammack appeared very distraught," Specialist William Bohl told an investigator. The soldier "was running about the room hysterically."

An M.P. was sent to wake one of the medics.

"What are you getting me for?" the medic, Specialist Robert S. Melone, responded, telling him to call an ambulance instead.

When another medic finally arrived, he found Mr. Habibullah on the floor, his arms outstretched, his eyes and mouth open.

"It looked like he had been dead for a while, and it looked like nobody cared," the medic, Staff Sgt. Rodney D. Glass, recalled.

Not all of the guards were indifferent, their statements show. But if Mr. Habibullah's death shocked some of them, it did not lead to major changes in the detention center's operation.

(Page 6 of 8)

Military police guards were assigned to be present during interrogations to help prevent mistreatment. The provost marshal, Major Atwell, told investigators he had already instructed the commander of the M.P. company, Captain Beiring, to stop chaining prisoners to the ceiling. Others said they never received such an order.

Senior officers later told investigators that they had been unaware of any serious abuses at the B.C.P. But the first sergeant of the 377th, Betty J. Jones, told investigators that the use of standing restraints, sleep deprivation and peroneal strikes was readily apparent.

"Everyone that is anyone went through the facility at one time or another," she said.

Major Atwell said the death "did not cause an enormous amount of concern 'cause it appeared natural."

In fact, Mr. Habibullah's autopsy, completed on Dec. 8, showed bruises or abrasions on his chest, arms and head. There were deep contusions on his calves, knees and thighs. His left calf was marked by what appeared to have been the sole of a boot.

His death was attributed to a blood clot, probably caused by the severe injuries to his legs, which traveled to his heart and blocked the blood flow to his lungs.

The Shy Detainee

On Dec. 5, one day after Mr. Habibullah died, Mr. Dilawar arrived at Bagram.

Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Mr. Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi.

Mr. Dilawar was not an adventurous man. He rarely went far from the stone farmhouse he shared with his wife, young daughter and extended family. He never attended school, relatives said, and had only one friend, Bacha Khel, with whom he would sit in the wheat fields surrounding the village and talk.

"He was a shy man, a very simple man," his eldest brother, Shahpoor, said in an interview.

On the day he disappeared, Mr. Dilawar's mother had asked him to gather his three sisters from their nearby villages and bring them home for the holiday. But he needed gas money and decided instead to drive to the provincial capital, Khost, about 45 minutes away, to look for fares.

At a taxi stand there, he found three men headed back toward Yakubi. On the way, they passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning.

Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint. They confiscated a broken walkie-talkie from one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers. In the trunk, they found an electric stabilizer used to regulate current from a generator. (Mr. Dilawar's family said the stabilizer was not theirs; at the time, they said, they had no electricity at all.)

The four men were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. Mr. Dilawar and his passengers spent their first night there handcuffed to a fence, so they would be unable to sleep. When a doctor examined them the next morning, he said later, he found Mr. Dilawar tired and suffering from headaches but otherwise fine.

Mr. Dilawar's three passengers were eventually flown to Guant�namo and held for more than a year before being sent home without charge. In interviews after their release, the men described their treatment at Bagram as far worse than at Guant�namo. While all of them said they had been beaten, they complained most bitterly of being stripped naked in front of female soldiers for showers and medical examinations, which they said included the first of several painful and humiliating rectal exams.

"They did lots and lots of bad things to me," said Abdur Rahim, a 26-year-old baker from Khost. "I was shouting and crying, and no one was listening. When I was shouting, the soldiers were slamming my head against the desk."

For Mr. Dilawar, his fellow prisoners said, the most difficult thing seemed to be the black cloth hood that was pulled over his head. "He could not breathe," said a man called Parkhudin, who had been one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers.

Mr. Dilawar was a frail man, standing only 5 feet 9 inches and weighing 122 pounds. But at Bagram, he was quickly labeled one of the "noncompliant" ones.

(Page 7 of 8)

When one of the First Platoon M.P.'s, Specialist Corey E. Jones, was sent to Mr. Dilawar's cell to give him some water, he said the prisoner spit in his face and started kicking him. Specialist Jones responded, he said, with a couple of knee strikes to the leg of the shackled man.

"He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god," Specialist Jones said to investigators. "Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny."

Other Third Platoon M.P.'s later came by the detention center and stopped at the isolation cells to see for themselves, Specialist Jones said.

It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,' " he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."

In a subsequent statement, Specialist Jones was vague about which M.P.'s had delivered the blows. His estimate was never confirmed, but other guards eventually admitted striking Mr. Dilawar repeatedly.

Many M.P.'s would eventually deny that they had any idea of Mr. Dilawar's injuries, explaining that they never saw his legs beneath his jumpsuit. But Specialist Jones recalled that the drawstring pants of Mr. Dilawar's orange prison suit fell down again and again while he was shackled.

"I saw the bruise because his pants kept falling down while he was in standing restraints," the soldier told investigators. "Over a certain time period, I noticed it was the size of a fist."

As Mr. Dilawar grew desperate, he began crying out more loudly to be released. But even the interpreters had trouble understanding his Pashto dialect; the annoyed guards heard only noise.

"He had constantly been screaming, 'Release me; I don't want to be here,' and things like that," said the one linguist who could decipher his distress, Abdul Ahad Wardak.

The Interrogation

On Dec. 8, Mr. Dilawar was taken for his fourth interrogation. It quickly turned hostile.

The 21-year-old lead interrogator, Specialist Glendale C. Walls II, later contended that Mr. Dilawar was evasive. "Some holes came up, and we wanted him to answer us truthfully," he said. The other interrogator, Sergeant Salcedo, complained that the prisoner was smiling, not answering questions, and refusing to stay kneeling on the ground or sitting against the wall.

The interpreter who was present, Ahmad Ahmadzai, recalled the encounter differently to investigators.

The interrogators, Mr. Ahmadzai said, accused Mr. Dilawar of launching the rockets that had hit the American base. He denied that. While kneeling on the ground, he was unable to hold his cuffed hands above his head as instructed, prompting Sergeant Salcedo to slap them back up whenever they began to drop.

"Selena berated him for being weak and questioned him about being a man, which was very insulting because of his heritage," Mr. Ahmadzai said.

When Mr. Dilawar was unable to sit in the chair position against the wall because of his battered legs, the two interrogators grabbed him by the shirt and repeatedly shoved him back against the wall.

"This went on for 10 or 15 minutes," the interpreter said. "He was so tired he couldn't get up."

"They stood him up, and at one point Selena stepped on his bare foot with her boot and grabbed him by his beard and pulled him towards her," he went on. "Once Selena kicked Dilawar in the groin, private areas, with her right foot. She was standing some distance from him, and she stepped back and kicked him.

"About the first 10 minutes, I think, they were actually questioning him, after that it was pushing, shoving, kicking and shouting at him," Mr. Ahmadzai said. "There was no interrogation going on."

The session ended, he said, with Sergeant Salcedo instructing the M.P.'s to keep Mr. Dilawar chained to the ceiling until the next shift came on.

The next morning, Mr. Dilawar began yelling again. At around noon, the M.P.'s called over another of the interpreters, Mr. Baerde, to try to quiet Mr. Dilawar down.

"I told him, 'Look, please, if you want to be able to sit down and be released from shackles, you just need to be quiet for one more hour."

"He told me that if he was in shackles another hour, he would die," Mr. Baerde said.

Half an hour later, Mr. Baerde returned to the cell. Mr. Dilawar's hands hung limply from the cuffs, and his head, covered by the black hood, slumped forward.

"He wanted me to get a doctor, and said that he needed 'a shot,' " Mr. Baerde recalled. "He said that he didn't feel good. He said that his legs were hurting."

Mr. Baerde translated Mr. Dilawar's plea to one of the guards. The soldier took the prisoner's hand and pressed down on his fingernails to check his circulation.

"He's O.K.," Mr. Baerde quoted the M.P. as saying. "He's just trying to get out of his restraints."

Page 8 of 8)

By the time Mr. Dilawar was brought in for his final interrogation in the first hours of the next day, Dec. 10, he appeared exhausted and was babbling that his wife had died. He also told the interrogators that he had been beaten by the guards.

"But we didn't pursue that," said Mr. Baryalai, the interpreter.

Specialist Walls was again the lead interrogator. But his more aggressive partner, Specialist Claus, quickly took over, Mr. Baryalai said.

"Josh had a rule that the detainee had to look at him, not me," the interpreter told investigators. "He gave him three chances, and then he grabbed him by the shirt and pulled him towards him, across the table, slamming his chest into the table front."

When Mr. Dilawar was unable to kneel, the interpreter said, the interrogators pulled him to his feet and pushed him against the wall. Told to assume a stress position, the prisoner leaned his head against the wall and began to fall asleep.

"It looked to me like Dilawar was trying to cooperate, but he couldn't physically perform the tasks," Mr. Baryalai said.

Finally, Specialist Walls grabbed the prisoner and "shook him harshly," the interpreter said, telling him that if he failed to cooperate, he would be shipped to a prison in the United States, where he would be "treated like a woman, by the other men" and face the wrath of criminals who "would be very angry with anyone involved in the 9/11 attacks." (Specialist Walls was charged last week with assault, maltreatment and failure to obey a lawful order; Specialist Claus was charged with assault, maltreatment and lying to investigators. Each man declined to comment.)

A third military intelligence specialist who spoke some Pashto, Staff Sgt. W. Christopher Yonushonis, had questioned Mr. Dilawar earlier and had arranged with Specialist Claus to take over when he was done. Instead, the sergeant arrived at the interrogation room to find a large puddle of water on the floor, a wet spot on Mr. Dilawar's shirt and Specialist Claus standing behind the detainee, twisting up the back of the hood that covered the prisoner's head.

"I had the impression that Josh was actually holding the detainee upright by pulling on the hood," he said. "I was furious at this point because I had seen Josh tighten the hood of another detainee the week before. This behavior seemed completely gratuitous and unrelated to intelligence collection."

"What the hell happened with that water?" Sergeant Yonushonis said he had demanded.

"We had to make sure he stayed hydrated," he said Specialist Claus had responded.

The next morning, Sergeant Yonushonis went to the noncommissioned officer in charge of the interrogators, Sergeant Loring, to report the incident. Mr. Dilawar, however, was already dead.

The Post-Mortem

The findings of Mr. Dilawar's autopsy were succinct. He had had some coronary artery disease, the medical examiner reported, but what caused his heart to fail was "blunt force injuries to the lower extremities." Similar injuries contributed to Mr. Habibullah's death.

One of the coroners later translated the assessment at a pre-trial hearing for Specialist Brand, saying the tissue in the young man's legs "had basically been pulpified."

"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus," added Lt. Col. Elizabeth Rouse, the coroner, and a major at that time.

After the second death, several of the 519th Battalion's interrogators were temporarily removed from their posts. A medic was assigned to the detention center to work night shifts. On orders from the Bagram intelligence chief, interrogators were prohibited from any physical contact with the detainees. Chaining prisoners to any fixed object was also banned, and the use of stress positions was curtailed.

In February, an American military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Mr. Dilawar and his passengers had himself been detained. The commander, Jan Baz Khan, was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno himself and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said.

The three passengers in Mr. Dilawar's taxi were sent home from Guant�namo in March 2004, 15 months after their capture, with letters saying they posed "no threat" to American forces.

They were later visited by Mr. Dilawar's parents, who begged them to explain what had happened to their son. But the men said they could not bring themselves to recount the details.

"I told them he had a bed," said Mr. Parkhudin. "I said the Americans were very nice because he had a heart problem."

In late August of last year, shortly before the Army completed its inquiry into the deaths, Sergeant Yonushonis, who was stationed in Germany, went at his own initiative to see an agent of the Criminal Investigation Command. Until then, he had never been interviewed.

"I expected to be contacted at some point by investigators in this case," he said. "I was living a few doors down from the interrogation room, and I had been one of the last to see this detainee alive."

Sergeant Yonushonis described what he had witnessed of the detainee's last interrogation. "I remember being so mad that I had trouble speaking," he said.

He also added a detail that had been overlooked in the investigative file. By the time Mr. Dilawar was taken into his final interrogations, he said, "most of us were convinced that the detainee was innocent."

###

MUST SEE WEBSITE ABOUT DELAY'S BUTT BUDDY

2005-05-19T19:04:00.000-07:00

http://filmstripinternational.com/

Wayward Cessna Triggers Massive Security Repsonse

2005-05-11T20:45:00.000-07:00

Wayward Cessna Triggers Massive Security Repsonse

Wayward Cessna Triggers Massive Security Repsonse
By John Hendren, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- Two men in a small private plane forced the frenzied evacuation of tens of thousands from the U.S. Capitol and the White House Wednesday and the plane narrowly escaped being shot down when it strayed deep into restricted airspace.

The airspace incursion to within three miles of the White House was described by military officials as the most serious since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. But it apparently was the result of inattentive piloting, officials said.

elaborate new safeguards initiated since Sept. 11. Two F-16 fighter jets joined by a Blackhawk helicopter and a Citation jet from the Department of Homeland Security, confronted the private plane in time to shoot it down, an order that was never given, defense officials said. "They were there in plenty of time," said NORAD spokesman Master Sgt. John Tomassi.

The pilot failed at first to respond to urgent radio contact or to the first of four flares fired by the Air Force jets just off its wings, defense officials said. When the Cessna 152 was finally diverted, it was escorted to an airport in Frederick, Md., where the pilot and his passenger were questioned and later released.

The incident set off momentary panic among some government workers and a chain of events that shuttered Congress, the Supreme Court and a number of other Washington federal landmarks. Capitol Hill workers described the exodus of federal workers -- some 25,000 work in the Capitol complex alone -- as a fairly organized and speedy. Yet when senators and reporters outside the Senate chamber failed to move fast enough, police officers barked, "Don't walk -- run!"

A fighter jet screamed overhead, and police emergency vehicles screeched through the streets as the crowd ran. Mounted police galloped through the crowds on their horses.

President Bush was on a bike ride at a suburban Maryland nature reserve at the time, about half an hour away by car. But Vice President Dick Cheney was evacuated from the White House in a motorcade to an undisclosed location, and first lady Laura Bush and former first lady Nancy Reagan, who was visiting, were removed to a secure location.

Friends identified the two men aboard the aircraft as Hayden Shaeffer of Lititz, Pa., a veteran pilot who was at the controls, and Troy D. Martin, a student pilot from Akron, Pa. The Cessna is jointly owned by 10 members of the Vintage Aero Club of Smoketown, Pa., according to club member Jack Henderson.

The two men were flying to an air show in Lumberton, N.C., when they were forced down, he said. Sheaffer is a flight instructor and Martin was his student, he said.

Henderson, the club's acting secretary, described the men as "salt of the earth." Sheaffer is a retiree and Martin is self-employed. The men's families did not return phone calls on Wednesday. Henderson was at a loss to say how they could have strayed into restricted airspace.

"He seems like an adequate pilot," Henderson said. "He obviously either misread the map, or his radios weren't working properly. I don't know how they stumbled in there."

The plane was searched and the wayward pilots were questioned by teams from the Maryland state police, the Secret Service, and the FBI and released without charges. Their errant flight path was deemed "accidental," Secret Service spokesman Jonathan Sherry said.

A government official who spoke on condition of anonymity said FAA controllers saw the plane on their radar before it entered the outer ring of Washington's restricted air space, which extends 14 miles in all directions from the Washington monument. All aircraft flying through this area must identify themselves to ground controllers.

But the pilot did not respond to attempts by FAA controllers to establish radio contact. Controllers were finally able to establish radio communication with the pilot after they learned the plane's tail number and issued a specific call. That was at 12:15 p.m. By that time, the plane was already leaving the air defense zone and the all-clear was sounded, about 16 minutes after the alert took effect.

"It was obviously pilot mistake, and they were having some radio issues," said Barry Maddox, a spokesman for the Baltimore FBI field office. "They were cooperative. There was no indication of harm to the public."

The incident was referred to the FAA for possible civil penalties for violating restricted air space, which could cost the pilot his license, Secret Service and FBI officials said.

"My understanding is, they were not allowed to leave in the airplane," Maddox said.

In the Capitol, senators had just finished a procedural vote on a highway spending bill and House members were debating an anti-gang bill when the Capitol Police issued an order to evacuate the building

Think Progress � Tom DeLay�s Born-Again Humility

2005-05-08T05:41:00.000-07:00

Think Progress � Tom DeLay�s Born-Again Humility:

"Tom DeLay, 5/6/05:
The only way we can serve well is to serve humbly, as servants both to God and our nation.

Tom DeLay, 6/13/03:
I am the federal government."

Tom DeLay's Empire of Favors

2005-05-08T05:29:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — Politicians are not always the most courageous lot. The first whiff of scandal, the first taint of defeat, usually makes them run - hence the popular saying that if you want a friend in this town, get a dog.

But Republicans in the House have not run from Tom DeLay, who, like Bill Clinton before him, has defied political gravity in recent months. Three of his former aides have been indicted in an investigation of campaign fund-raising practices; a close lobbyist friend is under criminal investigation; the House ethics committee is preparing to reconsider allegations that Mr. DeLay and his staff members violated travel rules.

Rather than try to protect themselves and engineer a coup, Republican members are throwing a tribute party for him this week. President Bush is also standing firm, even taking him along on Air Force One.

Raising a simple question: Why?

His supporters say that Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader, has done nothing wrong - that he's the target of unfair attacks from Democrats bent on partisan revenge. Yet the volume of outspoken support also speaks to the strong personal loyalty many have for Mr. DeLay. How is it that he is more popular among Republicans than, say, President Bush's proposals for Social Security?

The reason, it seems, is that over the years, brick by brick, Mr. DeLay has built a wall of political support. His small acts of kindness have become lore. Pizza during late night votes. Travel arrangements for low-level lawmakers. Birthday wishes, get-well cards, condolences for House members in emotional need.

On a larger scale, friends - and enemies - describe him as a favor-trader extraordinaire, piling up a mountain of goodwill. Almost every Republican in the House owes Mr. DeLay for something - a job, a piece of legislation or a large campaign contribution.

While the familiar Democratic caricature of Tom DeLay is that of a red-cheeked tyrant who started out as a bug exterminator and rose to power in Congress with a force that earned him the nickname "the Hammer," it is his cannier, more responsive side that appears to have won such a robust defense.

The powerful are indebted to him. J. Dennis Hastert was a relatively little-known representative from Illinois before Mr. DeLay catapulted him into the speaker's job in 1998.

The weak owe him as well. For the most imperiled Republican members of the House, Mr. DeLay created the "retain our majority" program, or ROMP.

His home state delegation is duty-bound because of his drive to redistrict Texas seats in favor of his party. K Street, the main drag for Washington's lobbyists, is home to many former DeLay staff members, as are Texas-based oil concerns (for which he has fought off stricter environmental standards).

And George W. Bush? Mr. Delay has pressed his Republican majority relentlessly to support the president's far-reaching legislation.

Clearly, Mr. DeLay has a geographic and ideological influence over broad swaths of his party that other politicians can only dream of.

"He is an extraordinary psychologist in knowing what makes members tick and what makes members successful," says Representative Tom Feeney, a Florida Republican who is an ardent DeLay defender and is also under scrutiny for his own travel. "Tom knows every member's district, he knows their needs politically, he knows their interests, their policy situations, he almost always understands their family situations."

Almost every Republican has an anecdote, including Representative Feeney. "My mom passed away on Jan. 30," he says. "The first person to send me flowers and a note was my good friend Tom DeLay."

From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/weekinreview/08korn.html?hp&ex=1115524800&en=208a0606ef4a123a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

CodeWarriorz Thoughts - ENewsBlog

2005-05-06T21:27:00.000-07:00

CodeWarriorz Thoughts - ENewsBlog

From the letter

""...However, it is my feeling that no crazed terrorists hiding out in mountain caves on the border of Afghanistan can threaten America. America will remain strong as long as we hold to those enduring values which made this country great.

It is my firm conviction that Supreme Court decisions which led to the wanton slaughter of 40 million unborn babies; the removeal of cherished religious truth from the schoolroom and the public square. the usurpation of the constitutional powers of our elected representatives, such as yourself; the sanctoning of pornography and the potential destruction of marriage, are all themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I owe no one any apology for my point of view, because in these matters I believe that history will bear me out.""

The Raw Story | Pat Robertson writes senator on terror; Judges bigger threat than 'cave dwellers'

2005-05-06T21:19:00.000-07:00

The Raw Story | Pat Robertson writes senator on terror; Judges bigger threat than 'cave dwellers': "DEAR SENATOR
Pat Robertson writes senator on terror; Judges bigger threat than 'cave dwellers'
Disputes contention Afghan terrorists problem
RAW STORY Advertisement
Rev. Pat Robertson wrote a letter in response to one issued by Sen. Frank Lautenberg earlier this week about condemning comments Robertson made on ABC Sunday, in which he indicated terrorists were a far smaller threat than American judges.
In his response, Robertson re-emphasized his contention, saying Afghan 'cave dwellers' were a far smaller threat to Americans than U.S. judges. That letter follows.
To read Lautenberg's earlier letter, click here."

Here''s from Pat Robertson's letter to Frank Lautenberg, Congressman, dated March 3, 2004, written as CEO of CBN...

"...However, it is my feeling that no crazed terrorists hiding out in mountain caves on the border of Afghanistan can threaten America. America will remain strong as long as we hold to those enduring values which made this country great.

It is my firm conviction that Supreme Court decisions which led to the wanton slaughter of 40 million unborn babies; the removeal of cherished religious truth from the schoolroom and the public square. the usurpation of the constitutional powers of our elected representatives, such as yourself; the sanctoning of pornography and the potential destruction of marriage, are all themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I owe no one any apology for my point of view, because in these matters I believe that history will bear me out."

DeLay Calls for Greater Humility- Code Will Have more Comment L8er

2005-05-06T04:50:00.000-07:00

In one of the most humorous events, DeLay, old king of Hubris himself calls for "humility"...that's like Satan preaching on being a good Christian.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501547.html

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) delivered an emotional homily yesterday on the need for greater humility in public servants, declaring himself a sinner before a largely Christian audience and warning that pride has brought down leaders throughout history.

"Just think of what we could accomplish if we checked our pride at the door, if collectively we all spent less time taking credit and more time deserving it," DeLay told the 54th annual National Day of Prayer gathering on Capitol Hill. "If we spent less time ducking responsibility and more time welcoming it. If we spent less time on our soapboxes and more time on our knees."

DeLay drew appreciative smiles when he added, "For in God, all things are possible, ladies and gentlemen. And even greatness from lowly sinners like you and me -- especially me."

Appearing before TV cameras and 300 people in the ornate Caucus Room of the Cannon House Office Building, DeLay said: "No matter what your faith, no matter what your political persuasion, your prayers for our increased humility, for our ever-humbler service to God and neighbor are needed and wanted."

DeLay, a Baptist, spoke at a time when the House ethics committee is considering an investigation of the financing of his overseas travel with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who faces criminal and congressional investigations. Most of DeLay's speeches these days appear aimed at shoring up his support among national conservative groups and constituents in his suburban Houston district.

"Throughout human history, all evil, all sin and indeed all suffering is ultimately a product of human pride and self-conceit," DeLay said. "At the same time, all heroism, all virtue, all true progress is ultimately a product of humility and self-sacrifice, from the obedience of Abraham and Moses, to the courage of Jesus on the cross."

The National Day of Prayer events here began with a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, where President Bush, a Methodist, acknowledged that "our plans are not always God's plans."

"We pray to give thanks for our freedom," Bush said. "Freedom is our birthright because the Creator wrote it into our common human nature. No government can ever take a gift from God away. And in our great country, among the freedoms we celebrate is the freedom to pray as you wish, or not at all."

Before DeLay spoke at the afternoon event on Capitol Hill, attendees knelt as a prayer was said for each Cabinet member. The opening prayer was offered by James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family. His wife, Shirley Dobson, is the chairman of the National Day of Prayer. She began working on the event 14 years ago, when it had a $6,000 budget and one volunteer, and she now runs a year-round enterprise with a $1.5 million budget and 40,000 volunteers who held an estimated 50,000 events yesterday.

Shirley Dobson said in an interview that a purpose of the day was to acknowledge grace at a time when "in many ways, our nation has made decisions on right and wrong that don't really line up with biblical truth, and yet God continues to pour out his blessings on us."

Dobson said the charges against DeLay seem vague, and said she believes he is a man of faith and good character. "If there's something there, let's bring it out and deal with it," she said. "Otherwise, let's leave him alone."

He smiled as he hustled past reporters. A television correspondent asked DeLay how he had chosen his topic, and the lawmaker replied, "Humility is something I work on every day." Stepping into an elevator, he said he found the audience's response "very heartwarming."

DeLay is a hypcrite. He was responsible for "pulling the plug"..on HIS OWN FATHER!

2005-05-04T17:52:00.000-07:00

From http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Ottawa/Michael_Harris/2005/04/15/997990.html

As in Iraq, so too in Terri Schiavo. So what are we to make of the view of the leader of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, who 17 years ago pulled the plug on his own father who was in a vegetative state and had no living will?

DeLay bitterly accused the courts of "thumbing their nose at Congress and the president," and predicted that the time would come when "the men responsible for this will answer for their behaviour."

Three companies no longer contributing to DeLay legal fund

2005-05-04T17:47:00.000-07:00

from http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D89SL7I80.html

By SUZANNE GAMBOA / Associated Press

Three major companies say they no longer make contributions to a legal fund for Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has been bombarded for months with allegations of ethical misconduct.

The companies had contributed $15,000 to the Texas Republican since 2000. The companies are American Airlines, Verizon and Nissan North America Inc.

"American Airlines does not intend to make any future contributions to Representative DeLay's legal defense fund," the Fort Worth, Texas-based airline said in a statement. "The $5,000 contribution, made three years ago, was done by an individual who is no longer part of American Airlines."

Verizon, which donated $5,000 in 2001, said it has had a policy since that year against contribution to legal defense funds. Nissan North America gave $5,000 in July 2001, but said it has not made any additional contributions and won't make any more. "We do not plan to seek a refund," company spokesman Fred Standish said in a statement.

The companies issued the statements this week to American Progress Action Fund, a project of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. American Progress launched a campaign April 6 to stop the contributions from the companies and two others, Bacardi U.S.A. Inc. and RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.

American Progress posted a message on its Web site that readers can quickly fill in and send from the site to any of the companies. Messages to RJ Reynolds had to be mailed because the company is blocking e-mail from American Progress' site, said Judd Legum, American Progress research director.

DeLay told reporters Wednesday he was untroubled by the groups' efforts.

"You really think a lobbyist group like that is going to have an effect on me and what I am trying to accomplish here?" DeLay said.

Other companies have contributed more than $300,000 to DeLay's legal fund since 2000, but Legum said his group only targeted the five major companies.

"The issue here is not whether people should have a defense fund. The issue is should consumers have to indirectly fund Tom DeLay's legal defense," Legum said.

Hypocrisy is Tom DeLay's Middle Name, Along with Exterminator and Satan's Main Man

2005-05-04T17:44:00.000-07:00

From http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/03/ana05006.html

Did you know that Tom DeLay won't talk to his own mother?

No, BuzzFlash is not making this up.

This is the mother -- spouse -- who went along with pulling the plug on Tom's dad -- along with Tom and the rest of his family -- which she confirmed to the Los Angeles Times this week:

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew — we all knew — his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."
Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."

On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in attendance."

But by May 13, 2001, when the Washington Post did a feature story on the toxic exterminator from Texas, the headline was, "Absolute Truth; Tom DeLay is certain that Christian family values will solve America's problems. But he's uncertain how to face his own family."
The Post article goes on to report:

For all of Tom DeLay's public espousal of Christian values, particularly his deep commitment to family, he privately has nursed a terrible estrangement from his own mother and three siblings. After the 1988 death of his father and the rise of his career in Washington, DeLay cut off contact with all three siblings, and seven years ago he stopped attending DeLay family gatherings. He has not seen or talked to his mother, Maxine, in two years, even though she lives about 10 miles away from Sugar Land; nor did he invite any of them to his daughter's 1999 wedding or even mention his mother in the published wedding announcement.
All through his roomy home are many photographs of his wife, his daughter and his in-laws -- but not a single one of the DeLays. Throughout our conversations, this rift is the only subject that he adamantly will not discuss.

And we could go into the story about his paid-for lobbying junkets, including one that included his daughter indulging in a champagne bubble bath with Tom DeLay's Gucci-heeled groupies. He's already been the subject of investigations of three ethical violations in the House, and an indictment is allegedly nipping at this heels in Texas.
And then there's his failed cockroach killing business, as the Washington Post describes it:

In a more expansive moment, Tom DeLay once proclaimed himself "the best weasel killer in Houston" and described his pest-control company as "the Cadillac" of exterminators. DeLay no longer advertises that -- his official biographies describe him only as former owner of an unspecified small business.
Indeed, a closer examination of his company, Albo Pest Control, suggests it was at best a struggling operation, and the public record raises questions about DeLay's business ethics, truthfulness and the lengths to which he will go when someone crosses him.

His first job out of college was at a pesticide company, mixing, among other things, large batches of rat poison. He went solo in 1973 and purchased Albo, which quickly ran into problems in Houston's boom-bust economy, says Christine DeLay, who helped run it then. "He was borrowing money to make payroll, which was a stupid business decision. Tommy said his five technicians were loyal, honest men and should not be laid off, so he borrowed money to keep from layoffs," she says. "So he got behind on payroll taxes."

DeLay was hit with tax liens three times by the Internal Revenue Service, in 1979, 1980 and 1983, because he was not paying payroll and income taxes. In addition, he paid court settlements twice to business associates who claimed he'd cheated them.

DeLay, while still in the state legislature, had signed a deal to buy out a small exterminator, Robert Bartnett, for about $ 40,000, but only paid him an initial $ 8,000, Bartnett recalls. DeLay claimed he stopped paying because Bartnett sold him a failing business. "When I was able to go look at his records," Bartnett says, "I learned that a great number of customers had quit because they didn't feel they were being serviced properly." The court ordered DeLay to pay Bartnett the $ 32,000 he was owed.

Oh, we could go on and on about the DeLay hypocrisy. Anyone so hypocritical and so misleading, self-righteous, and hateful, could only be working for the OTHER side, and we don't mean God's.
As one of his aides wrote about Clinton during the impeachment, "This whole thing about not kicking someone when they are down is BS -- Not only do you kick him -- you kick him until he passes out -- then beat him over the head with a baseball bat -- then roll him up in an old rug -- and throw him off a cliff into the pounding; surf below!!!!!"

No, it's not something a faithful mother would approve of.

But then again, Tom DeLay, the great champion of the brain-dead Terry Schiavo, doesn't talk to his mother -- or his siblings, so all his mother can do is read about it from afar and wonder if she gave birth to the male version of Rosemary's baby.

EDITORIAL: Gohmert's excuse on ethics vote sounds hollow

2005-05-03T17:24:00.000-07:00

We want our elected officials to be honest with their constituents when they tell us why they voted how they did.

We also want them to be honest with themselves.

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, says he was one of the 20 — out of 426 — representatives who voted against restoring the House's old ethics rules because he believes the new rules would have been more fair. Gohmert, a former state district judge, said, “Members of Congress have the right to due process, just as those same rights are granted to the most heinous criminals.”

That's right. But Gohmert also said the new rules had nothing to do with the fact House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has become the target of intense scrutiny for his alleged ethical breaches.

"Some people have said that the rule changes were made to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay," Gohmert told The Lufkin Daily News. "But ... the fact is the rules were there to protect everyone, including a couple of Democrats that were also under investigation."

Please.

If Gohmert really believes DeLay wasn't the only reason the House implemented the rule changes, he hasn't been reading the newspaper or watching the evening news. We know it takes a little while for freshmen congressmen to get their bearings, but we'd like to think Gohmert would be more in the know — and realistic — than that.

We would also like to believe that Gohmert's vote had nothing to do with the fact that DeLay's heavy hand in the Texas redistricting fiasco gave Gohmert a virtual walk in the November general election.

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/05/01/20050501LDNeddy.html;COXnetJSessionIDbuild73=C4WiorB2RxA4DK82Ws22z1yfosGPzMagM2028UbEMJFMA1bVL5Ug!2133753300?urac=n&urvf=11151662427340.6092862929421192

Tom DeLay can be replaced

2005-05-03T17:23:00.000-07:00

DeLay’s religious backers should see the corruption in his ethical lapses
During the dark days of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was fond of telling visitors that, “I’m the only president you’ve got.” Johnson subsequently chose not to run for re-election.

President Richard Nixon was thought to be inoculated against impeachment because his vice president was the hapless Spiro Agnew. Then the vice president cut a deal with the Internal Revenue Service and resigned. Gerald Ford became vice president, and articles of impeachment against Nixon were voted out of the House Judiciary Committee.

No government official is indispensable. The only pertinent question becomes: Who’s next in line?

One theme of last week’s debate in the House of Representatives was the indispensability of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. House Speaker Dennis Hastert had rewritten the House ethics investigation rules in order to protect DeLay. National uproar convinced members to revoke Hastert’s rules revision.

A ruthless player, DeLay has become symbolic of the religious right’s dominance of the congressional Republican Party.

For the cynical, it is easy to roll one’s eyes at the ethical allegations against DeLay and say that all congressmen play fast and loose with the rules. In the allegations against DeLay, there is an echo of the scandal that brought down Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas some 25 years ago. Speaker Hastert would do well to remember what became of Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley of Spokane when he ignored the furor over the House Bank. Foley and his majority were swept out of office.

The contradiction in Tom DeLay’s ethical lapses is that he advertises himself as a conservative Christian. He led a congressional attack on federal judges in the Terri Schiavo matter. That was a red meat issue for the right wing religious lobby, which made Schiavo’s life an emblem.

DeLay has set himself up as a quasi-religious symbol in a way that his predecessors, even Newt Gingrich, did not. How odd that this professional Christian doesn’t see the necessity for an ethical framework in the lives of congressmen. And how odd that the Christians who back DeLay don’t see the corruption at the heart of this matter.

http://www.dailyastorian.info/Main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=24273

Provision backed by DeLay called needless Big Oil subsidy

2005-05-03T17:21:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, was a key player in ensuring that as much as $2 billion in funding for research into ultradeep-water oil and natural gas exploration was part of the recently approved House energy legislation.

ADVERTISEMENT

If that measure is approved by the Senate, some of those funds could end up back in DeLay's district, where a Sugar Land-based energy consortium has been vying to run the program.

With DeLay's support, the Texas Energy Center has been lobbying for years to oversee the project, which involves research into finding and producing oil in the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The legislation also provides funds for exploring hard-to-produce onshore energy resources deep below the ground.

The funding proposal has been criticized by public interest groups as an unnecessary subsidy for an industry earning record profits and as pork-barrel spending pushed by influential lawmakers.

Even President Bush has questioned whether the industry needed the government help, saying "with oil at more than $50 a barrel ... energy companies do not need taxpayers-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas."

Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy for the Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, said: "There is a parochial nature to every bill that comes out of Capitol Hill. But this is, in our mind, a Mack truck of waste."

Ashdown said DeLay's involvement will raise suspicions that the Sugar Land research consortium has an inside track for the contract.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3165006

59.5% Nationwide Call for Tom Delay's Resignation According to Sacred Heart University Poll

2005-05-03T17:19:00.000-07:00

FAIRFIELD, Conn., May 3 /PRNewswire/ -- According to a national poll by
the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, a majority of Americans
surveyed, 59.5%, suggest that Congressman Tom DeLay should resign from his
position as House Majority Leader.
"The poll numbers regarding Congressman DeLay have serious political
consequences for Republicans in the forthcoming 2006 congressional elections,
and suggest that pressure for resignation will most likely be forthcoming from
fellow Republican Congressmen who see DeLay as a serious political liability,"
stated Dr. Gary L. Rose, professor and chair of Sacred Heart University's
Department of History and Political Science.
The Poll surveyed Americans nationwide on a variety of subjects, from the
President's approval rating and the current direction of events in Iraq to
education, the "No Child Left Behind" act, steroid testing among high school
athletes and Terri Schiavo.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay
Nearly half of those surveyed, 46.5%, indicated they are following the
U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics issues. Another 49.1% suggested
either not following the issue very closely or not at all.
Among those with an opinion and following the issue closely, 59.5%,
suggested that Congressman DeLay resign his leadership position. Another
40.5% said he should not give up his post.
As for resigning from the U.S. Congress, 45.3% with an opinion and
following the issue closely suggested he should while 54.7% said he should not
resign.

President George W. Bush
The Sacred Heart University Poll shows President George Bush's favorable
job rating at 52.3% -- down from 55.4% in October 2004 and 57.7% in April
2004.

Iraq
Americans are evenly split over the current direction of events in Iraq.
Among those with an opinion, 45.7% suggest the situation in Iraq is moving in
the right direction while 45.0% said in the wrong direction. Another 9.3%
said either there is no movement or the situation is stagnant.
And, in retrospect, 49.8% indicated that the American actions in Iraq were
the wrong decision while 36.8% said it was the right decision. Some, 13.4%,
were unsure.

Education
Over three quarters of Americans surveyed, 77.8%, suggested they were very
or somewhat aware of the "No Child Left Behind Act." Together with those
suggesting they were somewhat unaware, total awareness, at any level, is
83.4%.
Among aware survey respondents, 42.4% see the Act as very or somewhat
successful while 42.3% indicated they considered the Act somewhat unsuccessful
or not at all successful. Another 15.2% were unsure. African Americans are
significantly more likely to suggest the Act is successful (48.8%) than the
general population.
Regarding school vouchers -- allowing parents to move their children from
under-performing schools to more successful schools -- 69.4% of those with an
opinion said they supported school vouchers. Another 30.4% were opposed.
And, again, African Americans are significantly more likely to support school
vouchers (77.3%) than the general population.

Steroid Use
A large majority of Americans surveyed, 87.3%, suggested they strongly
supported (67.3%) or somewhat supported (19.7%) random testing of high school
athletes for steroid use. Another 9.3% said they were somewhat opposed (3.3%)
or strongly opposed (6.0%). Some, 3.3% were undecided.

Terri Schiavo
A large majority of Americans surveyed, 79.8%, said they followed the
issue as the President, Congress and the Courts fought over the removal of
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube in Florida. Together with those saying they
watched very little (8.7%), those following the fight at any level was 88.5%.
More Americans (43.0%) supported the removal of the feeding tube than
those opposed (39.2%), after learning that Terri Schiavo did not need a
feeding tube to eat, was not terminally ill and her internal organs functioned
properly.
Among those with an opinion, 52.3% supported the removal of Terri
Schiavo's feeding tube while 47.8% were opposed. Among Hispanics,
significantly fewer supported the removal of the feeding tube (41.2%) than the
general population.

EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT
- Gary Rose, Ph.D., professor and chair of Sacred Heart University's
Department of History and Political Science.
- Jerry Lindsley, director, Sacred Heart University Polling Institute

To speak with these experts, please contact Funda Alp at 203-396-8241 or
alpf@sacredheart.edu

How the Poll Was Conducted
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 1,000 interviews
with residents nationwide. All phone interviews were conducted between
April 20-28, 2005. The sample was generated proportional to population
contribution in all fifty states. Statistically, a sample of 1,000 completed
telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.0% at a 95%
confidence level. Margins for error grow as subgroups of the sample are viewed
separately. The steroid testing question was completed among 299 respondents
nationwide with an associated margin for error of +/-6.0%.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-03-2005/0003539484&EDATE=

Only an Outside Counsel Can Investigate DeLay

2005-05-03T17:18:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON -- May 2 -- Last week we celebrated the decision by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) to reverse the ethics rules changes that gutted the way the House monitors and enforces its ethics system. But as we've said all along, rolling back those rules is only an important first step toward broader reform.

One of those reforms must include the appointment of an outside counsel to investigate ethics complaints involving congressional leaders, like Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).

DeLay wields complete influence and control over members of his party. He determines who gets coveted committee appointments and whose bills are passed. He doles out favors and dollars at election time from his political action committees and has proven he will do just about anything to get a colleague to vote his way. What's more, four of the five Republican members of the Ethics Committee have taken money from DeLay's political action committee, and two have donated to his legal defense fund. How can they sit in judgement of him?

They can't. That's why we need an outside counsel who operates outside the sphere of DeLay's influence to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation without fear of retaliation. Nothing less will be credible.

Join us in demanding that Congress appoint an outside counsel to investigate DeLay, as it did in the cases of former House speakers James Wright (D-TX) and Newt Gingrich (R-GA). Please sign our petition calling for the appointment of an outside counsel in the case of DeLay. A message that you signed the petition will automatically be sent to your Representative.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0503-09.htm

Anti-DeLay billboards erected here

2005-05-03T17:17:00.000-07:00

A New England group founded by former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean erected two billboards today near the district of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, highlighting his problems with lobbyist-funded travel.

"Lobbyists sent Tom DeLay golfing; all you got was this billboard," says a billboard overlooking a freeway that bends around downtown Houston, identical to one erected in Galveston County. They will remain up until the end of May.

The billboards refer to golf outings and other foreign trips DeLay took that were paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose work is now under criminal investigation.

"The alleged ethics violations that surround Tom DeLay are a disgrace to the integrity of America's political system," Democracy for America Chairman Jim Dean, Howard Dean's brother, said in a statement. "These billboards send the message that Americans and the voters of Texas are sick of corruption and special interests dominating our political system and public officials."

But a local moderate Republican activist said out-of-state efforts will backfire with GOP voters, even those who might not normally support DeLay.

"Our whole state, our whole identity as a people, is we do our own thing," said Geyer Dybesland, president of the Magic Circle Republican Women's Club, a moderate GOP group founded by former first lady Barbara Bush. "We like our politicians tough, and we like them even better when they're being picked on by the media elite."

DeLay's ethics troubles have inspired local Democrats to run better-financed and better-organized campaigns for the March 2006 primary than they have since DeLay was first elected to the 22nd Congressional District in 1984. Former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson has decided to seek the nomination, and Houston City Councilman Gordon Quan said he is deciding whether to jump in.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3166403

The MUST SEE website of the day

2005-04-30T20:08:00.000-07:00

Great site on DeLay...

http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/

Please check it out...it ROCKS!

Tommy Boy's Majority Website

2005-04-30T20:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.majorityleader.gov/

Tom DeLay has a website

2005-04-30T20:04:00.000-07:00

For a grin...check out old
"BugKilla's Webby"
http://tomdelay.house.gov/

BACKGROUND ON DELAY'S PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS

2005-04-30T19:58:00.000-07:00

A complete analysis of DeLay’s legal defense fund and background on his previous violations of House Rules is available by clicking here.

The Charges:

• Unethical Behavior: A look at Tom DeLay's ethics problems, the House's 'neutered' ethics committee and the government ethics community's fight to clean up Congress.

• Undemocratic Leadership: A review of DeLay’s authoritarian leadership, under which open debate has been dramatically reduced, alternative proposals are routinely denied a vote and the ability to offer amendments has been sharply curtailed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wit and Wisdom of Tom DeLay
"The Constitution gives [Congress] the responsibility to create courts. If we can create them, we can uncreate them." -- Tom DeLay speaking at the Sugarland Rotary Club in late March, 2005.

Contributions to Rep. Tom DeLay’s Legal Defense Fund Slow to a Trickle

2005-04-30T19:56:00.000-07:00

Contributions from Members of Congress Drop by 83 Percent

WASHINGTON -- April 26 -- The recent spate of unfavorable media disclosures surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s ethical lapses may be hurting more than just his image; his ability to raise money also appears to have been severely affected. Contributions to DeLay’s legal defense fund have fallen off sharply according to figures just released by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Legislative Resource Center.

In the first quarter of 2005, DeLay’s legal defense fund raised only $47,750. That is less than one-fifth of the amount raised in the last quarter of 2004, when the fund collected $254,250.

An analysis by Public Citizen reveals that contributions to the fund from DeLay’s congressional colleagues also slowed considerably during the first three months of 2005. Only nine members of Congress contributed a total of $30,000, which is an 83 percent drop from the last three months of 2004 when 36 of DeLay’s fellow representatives contributed a total of $174,500.

Under House rules, donors may contribute a maximum of $5,000 per calendar year to a legal defense fund, and contributions can be made by individuals, political action committees (PACs), and corporate and union treasuries.

But Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) found a way to circumvent the House rules, according to the Public Citizen analysis. He made one $5,000 contribution through his leadership PAC and a second from his campaign fund. That $10,000 total contribution makes Bachus the largest congressional contributor to DeLay’s legal defense in the last three months.

The congressional contributors who have given the most to DeLay’s legal defense fund over the four-year life of the fund are: Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), $20,000; former Rep. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.), $15,000; and Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), $15,000.

While none of those representatives made contributions in the first quarter of 2005, five staffers to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt and the executive director of his PAC contributed a total of $2,750.

“It looks like most members of Congress are trying to distance themselves from Tom DeLay’s ethics problems by closing their wallets,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “If money truly speaks louder than words, then the absence of it is sending a loud message that this ethically challenged majority leader’s greatest asset to his colleagues – the ability to raise large bundles of cash – is waning.”

Other findings of the analysis of contributions to DeLay’s legal defense fund since its inception in July 2000 through March 2005 include:

Since it was formed in 2000, DeLay’s legal defense fund has raised a total of $1,046,971.

Corporations and their employees have contributed $593,996 to the fund, or 57 percent of all contributions.

Leading industry contributors (including their employees) have been energy and natural resources ($127,300); construction ($80,800); communications and electronics ($65,250); agriculture ($53,250); finance, insurance and real estate ($49,790); and lawyers and lobbyists ($36,500).
“It’s noteworthy that the energy and natural resources industry led in contributions to his legal defense,” said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “Of course, if you consider DeLay’s leadership on the recently passed energy bill, with its massive industry tax breaks and incentives, it would appear that energy companies got a big return on their investment.”

From this source

Is Tom DeLay toast? --

2005-04-30T19:55:00.000-07:00

A: No. Toast is sliced bread, heated and browned. Tom DeLay is a Republican congressman representing the 22nd District of Texas. The fate of DeLay is unclear at this juncture. There is no question that Republican congressmen are growing weary of the daily Tom DeLay stories, questions about his travel, questions about his finances, questions about his tactics. Right now, however, there doesn't seem to be a serious crack in GOP support; Chris Shays and Tom Tancredo do not a palace coup make. But if the House ethics committee uncovers more information that further damages the majority leader -- say, serious questions about his former relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- I think at some point Republican leaders will decide he is not worth the political capital of defending him. I just don't feel we're at that point quite yet.

John Bolton, on the other hand -- President Bush's choice to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- is toast.

Q: I cannot recall any vice president who has categorically stated he has no interest in running for president when his term ended. That is, until Dick Cheney. Who was the last veep to bow out in advance? -- Rachel Sawyer, Washington, D.C.

A: It is certainly most unusual for a vice president to disclaim any intention of succeeding his boss. There is no question in my mind that Cheney's disclaimer is genuine, not the kind of posturing one often hears from those swearing off White House ambitions. Aside from age or health questions, Cheney -- arguably the most powerful and influential vice president in history -- made it clear from day one that his role was to support George W. Bush in any way he can. He has earned Bush's trust and gratitude, and he has never made the president wonder about a hidden agenda. Of course, given the role Cheney has played these last four and a half years, perhaps running for president would be seen as a step down.

The last elected vice president not to run for president was Republican Charles Curtis. A White House contender in 1928, he was chosen that year as Herbert Hoover's running mate over Hoover's objections. Neither Hoover nor Curtis cared for each other in the ticket's ill-fated bid for re-election in 1932. But Curtis never ran for president after that. Here's a look at all the elected vice presidents since Curtis and their record as presidential candidates:

From this source

Lampson plans to challenge DeLay next year

2005-04-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

Dallas, TX, Apr. 28 (UPI) -- A Democrat who was defeated after Texas congressional districts were redrawn plans to challenge House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in next year's election.

From this source

Tom DeLay Solicited Donations with Skyboxes

2005-04-30T19:52:00.000-07:00

Fostering a Saddam Hussein image this past weekend at the National Rifle Association annual meeting, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) waved a rifle in the air and called on his "preferably armed" friends to help battle his enemies. In recent press statements, DeLay named as his enemy the "leftist syndicate" that has the nerve to point out that congressional representatives mired in ethics charges and criminal investigations ought to step down from House leadership.

Intent on bluster rather than on submitting to open, impartial and thorough investigation, DeLay continued his shrill rhetorical attack on judges, the media and Democrats to anyone who would listen.

Meanwhile, reports of further evidence of the improper solicitation of funds from donors linked to issues pending in Congress surfaced.

According to the Associated Press, Tom DeLay provided campaign donors with expensive skybox seats at entertainment events in 2000 provided by infamous lobbyist "Casino Jack" Abramoff, now under criminal investigation for stealing from and defrauding his clients.

DeLay never reimbursed Abramoff for the use of the tickets valued at thousands of dollars, and then DeLay voted for against legislation opposed by the donors who used the skybox seats.

While DeLay's lawyers claim the law at the time didn't require him to reimburse Abramoff, the law does require that members of Congress avoid appearance of solicitation of funds and of conflict of interest. House rules also prohibit members from soliciting funds from special interests or from groups with business before the House.

In the last two months evidence has surfaced that DeLay improperly accepted trips financed by Abramoff, who has given tens of thousands of dollars to DeLay's campaign fund, including a trip to London in 2000.

DeLay is also suspected of accepting an all-expenses paid trip to Russia that year ostensibly financed by a non-profit organization. According to the Washington Post, however, the non-profit was a front to hide Abramoff's involvement with financing the trip.

Earlier this week, GOP leaders in a public relations effort to shift focus from DeLay's ethics problems onto the Democrats called for allowing the House ethics committee to investigate DeLay, but under the new rules.

Republican leaders ordered new rules for the ethics committee last October after the committee unanimously rebuked DeLay for the third time. The House ethics committee has rebuked DeLay for abuse of power by improperly using his position and federal agencies to intervene in internal state disputes.

In 2003, DeLay was unanimously admonished by the committee for "creating the appearance of impropriety" when he accepted money from energy company executives who happened to record their intention to purchase congressional votes with $56,000 payments to DeLay's political action committee.

DeLay was also rebuked for threatening a Republican member by withholding financial support for future campaigns because that member refused to vote the way DeLay and the Republican leadership wanted him to.

DeLay is also suspected of funneling almost $200,000 to the Republican Party from corporate donors, a move that is illegal in Texas. This question is still under investigation by an Austin grand jury.

Public documents also showed that DeLay paid two family members over $500,000 from his political action committee in the last four years.

The ethics committee’s new rules limit the time of the investigation and require the committee drop the charges if in that short period of time it doesn't by a majority vote to rebuke DeLay. Earlier ethics investigations took a minimum of several months to complete thoroughly and to the satisfaction of the committee's members.

The committee is composed of an even number of Democrats and Republicans. And though the committee previously voted unanimously to rebuke DeLay for ethics violations on three occasions, it isn't likely to form a majority to do so now.

In an unusual move, the Republican Party leadership ordered the replacement of Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) and two other GOP members of the committee with GOP leadership loyalists who have given several thousand dollars to Tom DeLay's legal defense fund.

Republican leaders also threatened to investigate Democrats who called for DeLay's resignation or for more thorough and open investigation.

Responding to the Republican leadership’s imposition of new rules to protect DeLay in an editorial, former ethics committee chair Joel Hefley and current ranking Democrat Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (WV) described the situation as potentially "the end of a credible ethics process in the House."

Now the GOP wants to use a process that lacks credibility to "clear" DeLay.

Unfortunately for them, facts are facts and crooks have to be shown the door.

From this source

Christian groups buy ads to say God can change gays

2005-04-30T19:47:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON-- A full-page newspaper advertisement by conservative Christian groups that said homosexuals could "overcome" their sexual identity by accepting God sparked outrage among gay rights supporters on Monday.

The Christian Coalition and other conservative groups took out the advertisement in the New York Times. It is to be followed by similar displays in the Washington Post and USA Today later this week.

The advertisement features the testimony of Anne Paulk, a self-described "wife, mother and former lesbian," who says she was able to change her identity through a commitment to religion.

"Leaving homosexuality was the hardest thing I've ever had to do," Paulk says in the advertisement.

"As I grew in my relationship with God, I knew He had changed me forever. Gone was the hardness. Gone was the hurt. And gone was the shrill cry inside, replaced by God's still, small voice," the advertisement quotes her as saying.

'Bigotry, hatred and intolerance'
Tracey Canaty of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said her organization viewed the advertising campaign as a new attack on homosexuality.

"The bigotry, hatred and intolerance that this ad represents is the real perversion," she said.

Homosexuality has recently become a hot political issue after Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, compared it to alcoholism, sex addiction and kleptomania.

Asked in a television interview if he believed homosexuality was a sin, Lott replied, "It is."

"In America right now there's an element that wants to make that alternative lifestyle acceptable and normal," said Lott.

"You should still love that person.... You should show them a way to deal with that problem," he said, adding, "Just like my father having a problem with alcohol.... Other people have sex addiction. Other people are kleptomaniacs."

Gay Clinton nominee blocked
Republicans in Congress are blocking the confirmation of James Hormel, nominated by President Clinton to be U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, because he is openly gay.

In the latest clash over gays, the White House said Friday it was appalled at possible plans by House Republicans to block an administrative order barring discrimination against homosexuals in federal jobs.

Conservative House Republicans, including House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, may offer an amendment to a fiscal 1999 spending bill that would prohibit the government from spending money to carry out Clinton's order.

Message of hope
The Christian Coalition, a powerful bloc within the Republican Party and the best known of 15 organizations sponsoring the advertising campaign, said it was intended as a message of hope for homosexuals.

"Christian Coalition has energized people of faith to become involved in the political process and have an effect on public policy, but has also long maintained that America's most serious problems ultimately require changes in the heart of individuals. Religious faith plays a central role in that change," the organization said in a statement.

Other groups sponsoring the campaign include Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, headed by conservative activist Gary Bauer.

'The real road to healing'
Describing her path from homosexuality, Paulk says in the ad: "I met a Christian woman, a former lesbian, who listened patiently to my story and led me to a ministry helping people overcome homosexuality. Because they loved me without judgment, I was able finally to give all my relationships with God and begin the real road to healing."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/13/politics.gays/

DeLay gave to N.C. reps

2005-04-30T19:33:00.000-07:00

>> a d v e r t i s e m e n t <<

>> w e b t o o l s <<
Print Story | Email Story | News Tip?

WASHINGTON

Since 2000, members of North Carolina's congressional delegation have received more than $70,000 in contributions from Rep. Tom DeLay, the embattled House majority leader.

The figures aren't unusual by Washington standards. But they do illustrate a connection of common interests between DeLay, R-Texas, and members of the state's congressional delegation. All told, he has donated close to $2.8 million in the past five years to federal candidates, including several unsuccessful candidates in North Carolina.

"This is a way for him to curry favor with other members and to be seen as a team player," said Larry Noble, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that monitors money in politics.

According to analysis by the center, Rep. Robin Hayes, R-8th, was the big winner in North Carolina. He has received nearly $30,000 in contributions from DeLay's leadership political-action committee since the 2000 election cycle.

Hayes, who usually has run in moderately competitive races, said that the money - which is completely legal - does not cloud his view of DeLay.

"When I give money to others, should I expect anything in return?" Hayes asked. "The only thing they would owe me is their best effort to do the right thing."

Campaign-finance laws stipulate that a candidate can receive no more $10,000 total ($5,000 for the primary election and $5,000 for the general election) from a political-action committee in any given election cycle.

Noble said that the fact that DeLay was giving the maximum to candidates was important because it demonstrates he is doing "all that he can for them."

The only Republican members of the North Carolina delegation who have not received money from DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC are Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Rep. Howard Coble, R-8th, and Rep. Sue Myrick, R-9th.

Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said that although the amount of money from DeLay might not be that large, it opens doors to even more money down the road. Once donors see that DeLay has given money, they would be more likely to help a member in need, he said.

"In North Carolina, there are only a couple of districts that are competitive, so all the members know they could count on Tom DeLay to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in a hurry" from other sources, Sabato said.

DeLay, a champion of conservative causes, has been a lightning rod for Democrats for years. He engineered a redistricting plan in his native Texas that forced the retirement of several veteran Democratic congressmen in 2004, and subsequently increased the Republican majority in the House.

He has also been the subject of several ethics investigations. He has recently come under fire for his role in the Terri Schiavo case and for criticizing the judiciary, including Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that a lobbyist paid for overseas travel for DeLay, something House rules prohibit.

The House, under increased pressure from outside groups, voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to change ethics rules that had been protecting DeLay from further investigations.

Republicans have quietly begun to fear that the added scrutiny of DeLay is hurting the party. So far only one Republican member of the House, Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, has called on DeLay to resign.

From http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782447772&path=!localnews&s=1037645509099

DeLay Faces Lengthy Inquiry

2005-04-30T18:11:00.000-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ethics29apr29,1,2140990.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

By Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — After months of published reports raising questions about his overseas travels, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) says he is looking forward to proving his innocence to a revived House ethics committee.

But even if the panel begins immediately, it is expected to take six months to a year to complete an investigation into DeLay's conduct — and there is no guarantee that either the House majority leader or the committee will emerge unscathed, legal experts say.

In this case, the stakes are particularly high, both for Mr. DeLay, given his history of ethics lapses, and for this committee," said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in legal and government ethics.

She says the public will want to know this: "Will the committee be able to act in a bipartisan manner in the way that it has in the past?"

On Wednesday, DeLay characterized the forthcoming inquiry by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as not so much a formal investigation of him, but as a chance to answer questions about his conduct while helping to guide the committee to clarify its rules on travel and gifts.

Asked whether he thought the existing rules were clear, he responded: "No, obviously not."

Experts say DeLay is likely to find himself entangled in a process that will be lengthy and carried out largely in secret — and it will be committee members, not DeLay, who will shape the scope of the investigation.

In order to establish its credibility, the panel "needs to take hold of this case and decide how it is going to proceed," said Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington lawyer who has informally advised legislators under investigation by the ethics committee.

If the DeLay investigation "is going to have any credibility," he said in a interview Thursday, "it needs to be shaped and controlled by the committee with some orderly process."

Under the most likely scenario, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the panel chairman, and Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the committee, will review the news reports and jointly notify DeLay that he is the subject of a preliminary investigation. At that point, Hastings and Mollohan may informally question DeLay and others.

If that informal inquiry raises enough questions, the full committee will be asked to vote to form an investigative subcommittee with the power to subpoena witnesses and documents.

At issue are several overseas trips by DeLay. Newspaper reports have alleged that a registered foreign agent paid for one, and that some of the expenses on another trip were put on the personal credit cards of two lobbyists.

Even if those allegations proved true, Gross said, none would seem serious enough to cost DeLay his leadership position — if he didn't already have a history with the committee.

"None of these trips are knocking my socks off," Gross said. "But there is a bleeding process that carries over from past admonishments that he's received."

Last year, the ethics committee, the only House panel evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, unanimously admonished DeLay three times for his conduct.

"It is clearly necessary for you to temper your future actions to assure that you are in full compliance at all times with the applicable House Rules and Standards of Conduct," the committee wrote to him last fall.

It was after DeLay received that warning that news reports about his travels began to surface. Gross said the trip that may prove most problematic was a 10-day visit to England and Scotland in 2000.

The Washington Post has reported that Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist under investigation by a Senate committee and the federal government for his dealings with Indian tribes, used his personal credit card to pay DeLay's airfare. House ethics rules prohibit members from allowing lobbyists to pick up their expenses.

The Post also reported that lobbyist Edwin A. Buckham, a former DeLay staffer, used his credit card to pay $184 of DeLay's expenses on the same trip.

DeLay's lawyer, Bobby Burchfield, said in an interview Thursday that DeLay "believed and continues to believe" that his trip to England and Scotland was paid for by a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, and not by lobbyists.

Burchfield said the ethics rules held that a member was only culpable if he knew that those paying the expenses were disallowed by House rules — and that DeLay had no such knowledge.

Questions have also been raised about a 2001 trip to South Korea. The Korea-U.S. Exchange Council paid for the trip, which began a few days after the organization registered as a foreign agent. House ethics rules prohibit foreign agents from financing trips for members of Congress. DeLay has said that he did not know the group had registered as a foreign agent.

There are also questions about a June 1997 trip to Moscow sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Published reports have questioned whether the trip was actually paid for by business interests.