If You Really Loved Me You'd Let Me Eat Your Brain

When is Bush going to apologize for skipping out on his military commitment? Is there any word on that recently?


-

Posted by: jri | 01 April 2005

"But if we prosecuted Fonda we'd have to go after Kerry next, then 95% of the Harvard tenured faculty, and so on."

No doubt you would like to be the judge, jury, and executioner. Then, once you have eradicated the well known free speakers among us - you know those that don't conform to the right wing montra - you can finally purge the entire democratic party. Then a true one party system will exist and you will be able to see and hear only people who completely agree with your every word. You know the same kind of system that Sadam Hussein had in Iraq.

Posted by: Jim | 01 April 2005

jri and Jim...

Okay, kiddies. Recess is over! Time to come in for milk and cookies. And then it will be time to play with your coloring books! Just think! Next year you'll be old enough to fingerpaint! Won't that be fun? Now gather up your toys and come inside.

Sheesh.

Posted by: greg | 01 April 2005

Do you think you'll still be alive in 2038? Is this the same as saying "from my cold dead hands"? Have you predicted your year of death here?

I would think a "Rev" could forgive those who apologize without qualifications. But I hear anger in your words. The same anger I hear on talk radio and Fox news.

I wonder why you don't have a category called Bush and/or Conservative Republican Follies? I normally like your energy and your discussions and there certainly are lots of stories to discuss. You might start with the missing $9B in Iraq instead of bringing up meanless issues of who supports who when the election campaign cash starts to roll. Both sides have their cash cows.

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 01 April 2005

Not getting dragged into the wider war here; just want to say that I don't think Fonda was saying she "only regrets having been photographed".

She's acknowledging that allowing herself to be photographed was a mistake--because she understands what it meant and how it was used.

It was the photographs that she was most criticized for, because of their propaganda value. She understands that.

Forgive her or not--up to you. But she's apologizing for the right thing here.

Posted by: Editor - 201k | 01 April 2005

Yes, of course you blame Clinton. You always blame Clinton and I can see why: How terrible it was to have a healthy economy and eight years of peace. Oh, the horror!

Things have been so much better since the Bush administration allowed the worst multi pronged attack on our nation's soil to happen-- without stopping even one plane!!

Our country may be spinning into bankruptcy, but I feel so much safer with these guys in charge!

Posted by: gayle | 02 April 2005

I really did want to post something on the topic but don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read what's posted above. Bill Clinton should have prevented the first World Trade Center attack which occurred weeks after his first inauguration. And he's also responsible for the attacks that occurred eight months after he left office.

The reason George W Bush's presidency has not generated much controversy is because Congress is controlled by the Republicans. And they are not going to investigate Bush because they are too busy running up the national credit card thereby putting future generations in debt. China now holds 200 billion dollars worth of U.S. Treasury bonds, for the record, and if they decided to dump them it could tank our economy. As it stnads now, future generations will have to earmark a portion of their salaries for repayment to "Bank of China."

As for Jane Fonda, she recognizes that being photographed with weaponry being used against the U.S. troops was wrong. But she was right in her remarks in Hanoi when she declared our superior technology would not dissuade the North Vietnamese from fighting to the last person. They were simply not going to give up and it took us a while and many lost lives to accept this.

The power of images in now better understood. Hence the Bush administration's strict enforcement of a "no photograph" rule with respect to coffins returning from Iraq. This is certainly not to protect the privacy of the families of fallen soldiers as they claim because even in cases where the families of fallen soldiers have requested photographs it has been denied by the Pentagon. Rather, they don't want the general public to see the physical evidence of the human costs and perhaps to be reminded that it's not the children of the political elite who are serving so bravely in a conflict that appears to have no end.

Posted by: Betzee | 02 April 2005

The above analogy between Sean Penn going to Iraq to make a propaganda documentary on behalf of al-Zargawi and Jane Fonda's visit to Hanoi is completely over the top. The North Vietnamese had no beef with us until we invaded their country and began lopping them with bombs. Those who criticize Jane Fonda do so because they feel she was a traitor to her country. Those who view her actions more sympathetically realize she saw herself as acting in a humanitarian capacity. The actions of the United States in Vietnam, which also include napalming non-combatants and destroying the ecosystem with Agent Orange, were not what our ideals are about.

Jane Fonda perhaps also understood the decision to go to war is a political one. Need I remind you the Bush Administration had the chance to take out al-Zarqawi in early 2003 but opted not to because it would weaken their case for going to war. Whatever the failures of the intelligence community, one had to be on Mars, or further away, to be ignorant of the fact Bush and Company were just gunning to get into Iraq. Their (mis)use of the intelligence is something that definitely should be investigated by Congress given the war's toll.

Posted by: Betzee | 03 April 2005

A single red rose in hand, Karen Meredith leans over her son's simple white stone marker at Arlington National Cemetery.
Tears fall before words.
It's her first visit since she buried 1st Lt. Kenneth Michael Ballard, a fourth generation soldier, last fall.
Still fresh, like the soil churned behind her son's grave for another row of dead, is her anger. Anger at the way the Pentagon refused her sole wish when her son was killed by a sniper in May to photograph his casket returning from Iraq.
Meredith wanted to capture the way fellow soldiers respectfully draped the American flag across the casket, tucking the sides just so, and the way an honor guard watched over him as he was unloaded from a cargo plane.
But the Pentagon firmly said "no." It was against regulations and would violate the privacy of family members of other slain soldiers.
"It's dishonorable and disrespectful to the families," Meredith said. "They say it's for privacy, but it's really because they don't want the country to see how many people are coming back in caskets."
The Pentagon's reasons for denying the media access to the caskets returning to Dover Air Force Base are widely reported and legally contested. What isn't so well known is that the Pentagon refuses to allow the families of dead soldiers access to the caskets returning to Dover and other military bases.
"It's bad enough that they won't let the country see the pictures of the caskets, but a grieving mother?" Meredith asked. "It's unforgivable after what I lost."
The Department of Defense defends its policy, which was created in 1991 by then-secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The policy protects the privacy of families who have lost loved ones in the war and who may not want their son or daughter's casket inadvertently photographed, said Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesperson.
What families of dead soldiers want is "the expeditious return of their remains," not photographs at Dover, Venable said.
The department discourages family members from coming to Dover to watch the caskets of the dead being unloaded. "It's a tarmac, not a parade ground," Venable said. The caskets arriving at Dover are similar to the "hearse pulling up to the back of a funeral home," he said.
Meredith says she was prepared to lose her son in battle. What she wasn't prepared for was the way the military treated her when he died from a sniper's bullet in the head. She doesn't understand how a single photograph of his casket for her own personal album would violate her own privacy.
"It is ironic that this policy denies us the very freedoms of the press and speech my son -- and so many like him -- gave their lives to protect," Meredith said.

Posted by: Betzee | 04 April 2005

I was directed onto this site by the daou report on salon.com which provides an excellent list of blogs left, center, and right. I was hoping to engage some conservatives with minds but instead it's what I found elsewhere--a lot of ranting about how Clinton and liberals are responsible for every ill, both domestic and international, while Bush and team can do no wrong.

As for Jane Fonda, who has aplogized in contrast to every government official actually responsible for getting us into that imbroglio, it's of little consequence as far as I am concerned whether Americans forgive her or not. What's incredible is that the Vietnamese have forgiven us for what we did to their country in pursuit of some phantom menace. That could only happen in a situation where the enemy has been completely dehumanized. Jane Fonda's real sin was that she attempted to show the Vietnamese were, surprise of surprises, people too who, need I remind anyone, only acted in self-defense and lost between two and four million people.

And the same thing has happened in Iraq which, contrary to Dick Cheney's repeated claims, had no demonstrated links to al-Quaida prior to our invasion. Last fall when a respected scientist came up with the conclusion that as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians, many women and children, had been killed since Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced, where was the outcry from those Americans who purport to support a culture of life? Instead all we got from General Tommy Franks was a dismissive, "We don't do body counts." We certainly count our own, just not theirs.

Posted by: Betzee | 04 April 2005

In response to Fonda being a traitor we’d have to settle on a definition we could both agree upon and go from there. Regarding the Constitutional definition you provided a link to, the closest Fonda comes to treason is probably “adhering to their Enemies”, which to me is a little vague. I don’t think Fonda actually did anything I’d consider traitorous; she didn’t participate militarily against the US and didn’t supply the NVA with any actionable intelligence. Do I think she showed depthless poor judgement? Yes. Sitting in an anti-aircraft weapon used to shoot down and kill your countrymen, talking up the courage of the weapon’s crew is, in my opinion, morally repugnant. It is one thing to say a war is wrong, it is another to revel in the deaths of your own countrymen.

To address gayle’s comments: ‘How terrible it was to have a healthy economy and eight years of peace. Oh, the horror!’

Firstly, the healthy economy was good. During Clinton’s reign spending was controlled, which was necessary because of the crazy Cold War-winning spending of Reagan. But, remember, it can be argued the Evil Republicans spearheaded that by actually shutting the government down and pushing fiscal responsibility (now that the Dems were in power).

Secondly, eight years of peace is just wrong. Please do not forget eight years of enforcement and frequent armed response to the Iraqi no-fly zone, and eight Clinton years enforcing a meaningless and futile oil-for-bribes program. Have you forgotten American air raids over Kosovo in 1999? Does the name Mogadishu ring a bell? The hundreds killed in the embassy bombings in 1998 in Kenya and Tanzania or the Cole bombing are part of your eight peaceful years?

Posted by: 3XHAR | 04 April 2005

In fact it is precisely these actions which Jane Fonda has apologized for--not her anti-war stance. Let's remember at the time she made her trip to Hanoi Nixon was ratcheting up the bombing in order to get the North Vietnamese leadership to the negotiating table. He had bet the farm, i.e., his Presidency, on achieving "peace with honor" which meant withdrawing in a way that saved face for the United States. Needless to say, casualities were very high on both sides in those final years.

I have been to Vietnam and it might surprise some posters that in fact the average Vietnamese views Jane Fonda as not a good person because she betrayed her country. However, anyone who's been anywhere in rural northern Vietnam can't but notice the bomb craters amidst the rice paddies and understand the outrage of those who thought the war was morally wrong and felt they had to take some sort of action.

As for the budget, divided government is the best way to achieve fiscal solvency. It's a little hard for me to take Bush seriously when he claims he doesn't want to leave problems for future generations given the deficit that has been run up on his watch. Those who hold our ever increasing national debt are understandably nervous about the declining value of the dollar. And we should be too--Argentina once had a high standard of living.

Posted by: Betzee | 04 April 2005

Re: 3XHAR's post

While Bill Clinton did resort to the use of force from time to time over his eight years in office, he never reveled in warfare the way George W Bush does--one only needed to watch the Republican National Convention last year to see the elevation of warfare taken to a new level. And of course this has been carried out by those who had avoided service in Vietnam. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz....

Nor did Bill Clinton appear to labor under a belief that "if we get tough with these people then they'll do what we want." Had Bush and Company bothered to study the history of American involvement in Southeast Asia they might have considered the possibility "shock and awe" might not work. In guerrilla warfare, the enemy is willing to take very high causalities. We may yet end up in the same stalemate we did in Vietnam which requires us to maintain a large troop presence on an indefinite basis to thwart the objectives of the enemy. Training a local army to replace departing U.S. soldiers proved to be an utter failure in Vietnam and I have not seen any evidence it will be different in Iraq. Warfare is too serious a business not to study every possible lesson.

Posted by: Joe | 05 April 2005

Response to Joe: “While Bill Clinton did resort to the use of force from time to time over his eight years in office, he never reveled in warfare the way George W Bush does—“ If by reveling you mean seeming self righteous by responding to attacks, I’d agree with you.

Also: [Nor did Bill Clinton appear to labor under a belief that "if we get tough with these people then they'll do what we want."] Uh… isn’t the whole point of any war to get people to do what you want?

Posted by: 3xhar | 05 April 2005

Responding to the Rev Mueller:

I'm still waiting for you to act on your statement :
"I should have a Bush/Republican Follies section. I'll get right on that."

Just some notes: I believe in capitalism and the highest price gets the Lincoln bedroom. Are you two (3xhar and Mueller) anti capitalist now?

For those who use the "scandal a week" situation as a legit critism of the Clintons you are just too far gone, go ahead and drink your Kool-Aid and eat your imaginary "yellow cake". Petty criticisms of the past only make your arguements appear even more partisian. I'm suprised you didn't mention Clinton's expensive haircut, as Marlon Brando would say "the horror, the horror".

Somehow the waisting of taxpayer dollars under Clinton has moved to tens of billions of dollars under Bush but the same outrage I saw over Clinton's haircut by the Clinton haters is missing now that Bush is waisting our tax money. H-Y-P-O-C-R-A-C-Y . I'm just looking for some consistency here.

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 05 April 2005

Repponse to 3XHAR: While it's true that the purpose of war is to get the other side to do what you want it's certainly not the only tool in the toolbox. Nor is success guaranteed--Vietnam being a case in point.

And the reason why most policy-makers shy away from the use of force except as a last resort is because it's quite expensive as we are finding out in Iraq. Most Americans, including myself, supported our effort in Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring those who had attacked us. It was quick and neat and the loss of life, on both sides, was relatively small.

The flaw of the Bush administration is they believed their own propaganda going into Iraq which they foresaw as replicating the Afghan experience. This type of self-delusion is terribly dangerous and reflects a dereliction of duty frankly. Why didn't our troops have armor? Because Rumsfeld et al didn't want to acknowledge there was any widespread resistance to the U.S. occupation which was a belated chapter in the history of colonialism. There's much talk of "freedom" but no acknowledgment of the power of nationalism. That's what sustained the Vietnamese.

Who can say if we're safer today having stirred up a lot of anti-American sentiment in all corners of the globe. The only thing I'm sure of is that right-wingers are scheming to make it all Bill Clinton's fault and keep banging that drum for the next four yeas as a diversionary tactic.

Posted by: Joe | 05 April 2005

With all due respect Reverend, in my experience those who make frequent reference to their high standards, as opposed to the rest of mankind, have little else in the way of accomplishment. Relentlessly passing judgment on others is a way to make you feel better about yourself. Realistically speaking, human nature being what it is most people have cheated when they felt they could get away with it. Think about it carefully before you annoit yourself on Mt Olympus. Have you been scrupulously honest with your taxes, faithfully paying what you owe for each wedding/baptism/funeral perfomed? Ever exceeded the speed limit? Nibbled off of someone else's plate at Sizzler?

Posted by: Betzee | 05 April 2005

Rev Mueller said
"You can choose to accept the scandals of the Clinton administration – if you want to live in a world where politicians lie and you take it, where politicians ruin lives, rig investments, and sexually abuse people but that’s OK to you…that’s your world, not mine."

I don't like corruption or scandals either, still, I'll say it again, I think you should use your energy to attack *all* corruption, Delay's strong arm tactics, House changing rules to ALLOW felons, missing Billions of dollars, Bush's friends in oily places, Where's the vision (with the repubs having control of the house,senate,White House and 7 of 9 Supreme Judges appt by Repubs) and continue to complain about the same issue for, let's say, TEN YEARS! You don't hate corruption or scandals, or admire history so that you can avoid the mistakes of the past you only hate Clinton. Once I see the same energy *against* the current administration for the same or worse violations will I believe that you are truly a messenger of enlightened words. I'll be checking your Bush/Repub Follies messages over the next 10 years and get back to you on how you're doing.

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 06 April 2005

Let's try this another way (even though Rev Mueller dodged my specific examples and didn't acknowledge whether you've ever exceeded the speed limit or not.)

Every running for higher office needs a huge campaign war chest. (Followed the Tom DeLay scandal? Are you aware Enron was the biggest contributor to Bush-Cheney 2000?) Nobody gives away money without expecting something in return--agreed? Personally I would rather have them repaid with a night in the Lincoln Bedroom because that has no impact on ordinary citizens.

Fleecing my pocket by awarding non-bid war reconstruction contracts to a campaign supporter and former employer of the VP most decidedly does. And what did you think about the giveaway to the drug companies 2003 Medicare prescription drug coverage plan in which the actuary was threatened by termination by his superior if he let Congress know the true estimated costs of the program rather than the ones the Bush administration was publicly advertising? Does that meet your high standards?

Anyway, I've got to go off to work where I'm going to prepare a report like the Bush administration's fake news broadcasts? After all, if they can pass off fake as real why can't I?

Posted by: Betzee | 06 April 2005

Good point Betzee,I forgot about the fake news and let's not forget about Jeff Gannon being a fake reporter. What exactly did Bush mean when he said he had a man date? Imagine what the Good Rev would have said if this happened on Clinton's watch. Where is the outrage and the same hatred towards the little bush admin?

The difference as I see it is that everybody believed that Clinton knew what was going on in his admin and most believe that Bush doesn't have control (and therefore should not be blamed for intellence failures or anything for that matter) over his admin. Still that should not matter, I believe our leaders should be held to a higher standard. Clinton haters *only* hold Clinton to these higher standards. When in doubt blame Clinton...but never little bush.

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 06 April 2005

Some may still find little Bush (that's what the Chinese call him) above reproach but the rest of America is clearly having its doubts:
One day after a Gallup poll revealed that George W. Bush's approval ratings had dropped to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, a new USA Today/CNN poll brings more bad news for the White House.
USA Today notes, "By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are 'trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans' on moral values."
Also: "By more than 2-to-1, 39%-18%, Americans say the 'religious right' has too much influence in the Bush administration," according to the daily.
Other nuggets buried amid the data include the fact that Bush's approval rating for handling the economy hit a new low, 41 percent. That's down nine points in just two months. Bush's approval rating on Social Security cratered to 35 percent. What's more, how people feel about Bush personally hit a new low: Fifty-four percent say they view him favorably.
And for the first time in the USA Today/CNN poll, a solid 50 percent of Americans think "the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
This morning of course we were also greeted with the following news about our uberoily House Majority leader: The wife and daughter of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by Mr. DeLay's political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Mr. DeLay's home state, Texas.
Most of the payments to his wife, Christine A. DeLay, and his only child, Dani DeLay Ferro, were described in the disclosure forms as "fund-raising fees," "campaign management" or "payroll," with no additional details about how they earned the money.
Imagine the outcry if Bill Clinton had put Hillary and Chelsea on the payroll in this manner.

Posted by: Betzee | 06 April 2005

Rev Said: "Bad intelligence: A sound decision was made based on the best information available at the time."

Usama wasn't killed during the Clinton years for the same reason you used above for Bush intelligence failures. Here again you are not consistent, you blame Clinton for following current rule of law but find excuses for Bush's failures. None are so blind as those who do not open their eyes.

Should Halliburton have been ruled out automatically? No

I look forward to your Bush follies blog.

You should stop watering down the Bush issues with statements like "That's a lot of planning for Darth Rove to go through just to get a plant in the press corps." and "I have yet to see anything that, upon further investigation, suggests even the appearance of impropriety." and "their vetting process could have been better." and "What happens in this kind of situation is that you go with the best option to get the ball rolling, admitting it might not be perfect" and "given the constraints, mostly having very little ramp-up time."

Maybe you should start each blog situation imagining that the Clinton admin is in charge just to get your *energy level* up.

Maybe you could list the 40 top Clinton scandals and their result? Travelgate,Whitewater,Vince Foster,Filegate etc. Would you use your watered down words to describe the Clinton investigations. NEVER!

I lived through the 90's with you and the 3xhar cronies, when ALL worldly problems *were* the result of Clinton. I must say that I truely enjoy watching this Bush Presidency follies and the silence of rage by the Clinton Haters. Truely Schadenfreude. I'm just looking for some consistency but all I find is splitting of hairs to paint the situation as somewhat different to support their lack of rage against the Bush Admin. You would have used the word "squirming" or "waffling" in the 90's. Either way I hope to see you next week.

Note:I must reduce my time reading/writing blogs and
support my companies capitalistic views of maximizing profits. This by no means should be taken that my silence means that you "win" or that your ideas are "superior".

In a Cowboy Bush world it would be better stated as: I operate in the world that if I don't work, the terrorist win. So "Bring 'em On!".

Auf Wiedersehen!

Posted by: puzzleboydave | 06 April 2005

I found your claim that Bill Clinton was somehow responsible for recent corporate scandals startling, Rev Mueller. In my mind they have to do with an age old motivating factor: GREED. Coupled with a relaxed regulatory environment of course.

As a Californian I know full well what Enron got in exchange for its generous contributions to Bush-Cheney 2000: the opportunity to rook Californians by rigging the energy market. And Bush looked the other way in the early months of his first term claiming it was just "free market." That was most certainly not the case as the subsequent post-Enron collapse investigation revealed.

California is not Bush friendly and that's another factor. Might i remind you, Bush has no qualms about imposing market protecting steel tariffs when the steel workers were deemed an important constituency to his reelection effort.

Of course Democratic lawmakers also accepted large amounts of money from lobbyists seeking deregulation favorable to their corporate sponsor. But your claim that George W Bush has provided some higher form of moral leadership is also laughable. The opulence of his 2nd inauguration reflects the importance our society attaches to being superrich which in turn encourage unethical business practices. Breakfasts with Bush, attending a rock concert with his daughters, etc., was for sale to the highest bidder. And all of this while the Tsunami disaster left people in rural Asia homeless and starving.

Posted by: Betzee | 07 April 2005

The hallmark of George W Bush's presidency, frankly, is that he's never asked Americans, let alone his own base, to do anything hard. And a president like that is going to leave nothing behind except problems for the next generation to solve.

Raise taxers to pay for the war on terror or his proposed privatization of social security? Why do that when we can borrow more from the Japanese and Chinese. Create a system where all young Americans, not just those who hail from declining urban neighborhoods and small town towns where Wal-Mart is the major employer, face the prospect of serving in combat? That might have prompted harder questions about the intelligence on Iraq so certainly not. Out of the question. Attempt to change the culture of institutionalized bribery that characterizes the way things get down in Washington and prove that the town isn't under corporate occupation as Ralph Nader claims? Unimaginable to bite the hands that feed you.

Posted by: Joe | 07 April 2005

With all due respect, Reverend, we don't generally put the President under oath. That it certainly not to mean I take lying under oath lightly. I can assure that is not the case. But when I read that Push would only testify before the 9/11 commission if he was not put under oath it's reasonable to conclude that he's putting his political fortunes ahead of getting at the truth. Not to mention putting together the most comprehensive analysis we can to prevent a repeat of the events of that tragic day.

As for character assassination, do the names Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill or now retired General Shinseki mean anything? They were all castigated one-two karate chop fashion after they criticized or merely questioned official Bush policy. And couldn't the source who revealed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plfame's identity have been identified within a day had Bush shown any interest in "putting politics aside" when a felony had likely been committed by someone on his staff? That of course occurred after her husband came forward to say he had been asked to investigate the famed attempted yellow cake purchase and decided it was meritless and reported that back well before it appeared in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

The fact he's shown a puzzling disinterest in getting to the bottom of the so-called "intelligence failure" on Iraq's WMD doesn't make a strong case for his honesty in the run-up to the war. He's as nonchalant as Scott Peterson was about finding Laci and has exhibited the diligence as OJ in finding the real killer of his ex-wife and her friend. Awarding George Tenet the Medal of Freedom was positively bizarre if the CIA really responsible for the errors and I can only interpret that as a way to ensure his continued silence.

Posted by: Betzee | 07 April 2005

Calm down, have a glass of warm milk, Reverend. Remember, you gotta defend this guy for another four years and will need to pass yourself like a long distance runner.

It might surprise you to know that most young people are exceeding cynical about public figures. After all, who can they look up to? Not "I didn't know what was going on" Ken Lay. I was finishing graduate school when the Lewinsky scandal broke and the undergrads simply shrugged it off with a, "all politicians lie, this is nothing new." Your casually dismissing a felony offense only feeds into this vacuum moral relativism I might add.

As for heartbroken parents, the ones I truly feel for are those who have lost children (or husbands, wives, or parents) in Iraq and will spend the rest of their lives wondering what the sacrifice was for when there were no weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile for the Bush twins, it seems to be party on! When I read they have enlisted I will be assured this is really a cause worth dying for.

Posted by: Betzee | 07 April 2005

In responding to disclosures that Representative Tom DeLay's wife and daughter received more than $500,000 from his political action and campaign committees, Representative Roy Blunt is quoted as saying, "The things that Tom has been criticized about in one way or another every member of Congress could be criticized about."
We should all be relieved to find out that Mr. DeLay is not alone; we are told that every one of us is represented by members of Congress who engage in such conduct. And disheartened to realize the problem is bigger than that Bill Clinton was a rotten apple!

Posted by: Joe | 08 April 2005

Such high-dollar family values bring the DeLay saga full circle -- all the way back to the original ethics case against the majority leader brought by the Congressional Accountability Project, a watchdog group affiliated with Ralph Nader. Nine years ago, the watchdog group filed a complaint with the House Ethics Committee that focused on the activities of DeLay's younger brother Randy. A failed restaurateur and attorney who had filed for bankruptcy in 1992, Randy's fortunes brightened considerably after Tom rose to the House leadership -- and Randy started handing out business cards as a Washington lobbyist.

Wonder if Randy DeLay and Neil Bush have ever joined forces? They would be a match made in crony capitalism heaven.

Posted by: Betzee | 08 April 2005