this is funny (DeLay, cont.)

from the transcripts of Larry King Live, Sept. 28, '05, on the day Tom DeLay was indicted by a grand jury, King interviewed Dick DeGuerin, the defense attorney for Tom DeLay:

...KING: What did Tom say to you today?

DEGUERIN: He said let's get out there and fight them. He's ready for the fight. He was hoping that he wouldn't be indicted because, you know, an indictment, Larry, is as bad as a conviction.

KING: Yes.

DEGUERIN: Because he had to step down as majority leader. But he's resolved to fight this out. There's going to be no compromise, no settlement. This is either going to go to trial and we're going to win or it's going to be dismissed before trial.

KING: So, they know there's no plea bargain here or anything?

DEGUERIN: Hell no, excuse me, but no there's not going to be.

Hmm...why did DeLay's attorney emphasize so strongly that there would be no deal, that DeLay wouldn't consider it? As we now know, it's because DeLay already tried to make a deal - stupidly confessing to his crime in the process - and was turned down.

*emphasis mine

DeLay - confessed criminal now cries victim

from the Washington Post:

Lawyers for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) tried unsuccessfully in late September to head off felony criminal indictments against the then-majority leader on charges of violating Texas campaign law by signaling that DeLay might plead guilty to a misdemeanor, according to four sources familiar with the events

The lawyers' principal aim was to try to preserve DeLay's leadership position under House Republican rules that bar lawmakers accused of felonies from holding such posts. DeLay was forced to step down as leader on Sept. 28 after the first of two grand jury indictments.

The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Those transfers are at the heart of the prosecutor's investigation of the alleged use of corporate funds in the 2002 Texas elections, in violation of state law. In the prosecutor's view, DeLay's admission put him in the middle of a conspiracy not only to violate that law but also to launder money.
...
Another DeLay lawyer, Bill White, confirmed that "we had authority to kick . . . around a bit" the idea of guilty pleas. But he emphasized that DeLay was negotiating with Earle out of duress. His lawyers were trying to figure out: "Is there any way around this so he does not have to give up the leadership?"

First of all, I can't believe that DeLay actually admitted to being involved in money laundering. There is no other way to describe what the Republican PACs did, illegally transfering money to hide its source and funnel it to Republican campaign coffers. But now his lawyer wants to claim that he made the confession under duress? Give me a break! What kind of duress? Physical torture? No. Psychological torture? No. He didn't endure threats of a personal nature, either. No, poor Tom DeLay was under the extreme duress...of having to give up his cushy, money-raking post as Majority Leader. This just shows how nuts the guy is, and how out of touch Republican Party Leadership has become. He has no remorse for the crime; he committed it, it paid off handsomely for Repubs in Texas, and now, if it would allow him to keep his coveted post, he's willing to confess to it. Only the D.A. said No Deal, and now DeLay wants to take it back! Duress my foot. If he wants to know what duress really feels like, he should try to live a month in the life of an average American citizen, balancing the costs of his family's food and health care and trying to make room in the budget for clothes and school supplies, all while living with the uncertainty of not knowing whether your job will still exist next month. The man, if he's as guilty as he admitted, deserves no sympathy: he's a criminal! But then to claim duress at the thought of having to give up his leadership post? What a jerk!

good news for Muslims, world

from Coming soon to fight extremism in Britain: the Imam Roadshow and Islam Online:

After years of watching radical Muslim groups teach violence in town meetings and on the Internet, Muslim leaders announced plans on Thursday to fight back by taking the message of mainstream Islam onto the road and out into cyberspace.

A task force set up after July's suicide bomb attacks in London concluded that extremists have found recruits among young Muslims "fuelled by anger, alienation and disaffection from mainstream British society."
...
Among its recommendations were a roadshow of Islamic scholars -- who could visit towns and cities and explain mainstream Muslim teachings -- and "Islam Online", a Web site for Muslims looking to understand their faith.
...
"There is no doubt that the Internet has opened opportunities for all sorts of people and groups. And some are extremist groups who have used the Internet as a means of propaganda to spread their hate and division. There is a need to ensure that mainstream Islamic teachings are also disseminated."

The task force -- including prominent Muslim figures ranging from members of the House of Lords to Yusuf Islam, the former singer Cat Stevens -- also proposed new training for imams and better teaching of Islam in schools.

In writing this, I have struggled to find the words to talk about extremism. It seems to me that there are three factors at stake in conceptualizing "extremism": flexibility, treatment of others, and the social norm. That is, an extremist belief will have some mix of the following: being uncompromisingly rigid; engendering acts that violate another's rights (including the taking of life); and standing outside of what is considered normal or mainstream. [A caveat: Linking extremism to the social norm is always dangerous because if a society itself is extreme on a position, then what appears to be an extremist position may in fact be the most moral position. As an example, the abolitionist's position against slavery in the early 19th century United States comes to mind.]

Extremism is not limited to religous belief, although that certainly is where attention in the last few years seems to have focused. Political and economic positions and policies, for example, also can be marked by two or even all three of the characteristics I have described. In the end, except for the most extreme of extremists, making such judgment calls is a largely subjective endeavor. It is even more complicated in areas where belief or even action is separated many degrees from its result: an economic policy in one country that leads to starvation in another; a religious speech that stirs feelings which fester in a person for some time before he or she acts out on the meaning they derived from it.

In any case, as difficult as extremism is to name (except, again, in the most extreme cases), the conditions which can lead to such dangerous positions may be identifiable. In the case of religious extremists who claim to be faithful followers of Islam, it is good to see that Muslim leaders are standing up and effectively working to take away the (false) religious underpinnings of the extremists' beliefs. The best way to approach extremism may well be to deny the foundational principles. Once a person has bought into an extremist position they will be hard to sway from it. By denying the extremist's claim to faithfulness, however, and offering an appealing and legitimate alternative, it may be possible to stop extremism's spread.

We can hope. And we can work to make such strides against all extremism, of any faith or political philosophy.

I'm stunned!

from American Chronicle, found on Zogby International:

By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S. adults from October 29 through November 2.

I knew that the President's numbers were falling (his latest approval rating stands at 37%, thanks in part to a 2% approval among African Americans and especially to Republicans beginning to register their disapproval). Still, this impeachment number caught me by surprise. More Dems, obviously, supported the question; the younger a person is, the more likely they are to be in favor of impeachment; and ethnic and religious minorities also are more likely to be in favor of impeachment. Geographically, the breakdown shows support is fairly widespread - belying the notion that this is a "left coast," elitist, or otherwise liberal attack:

Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 76% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 50% of Independents and 29% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 70% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 51% of those 31-49, 50% of those 50-64, and 42% of those over 65. 56% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men. Among African Americans, 90% favored impeachment, compared to 67% of Hispanics, and 46% of whites. Majorities of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Others favored impeachment, while 49% of Protestants and 46% of Born Again Christians did so.

Majorities favored impeachment in the East (53%), West (56%), and Central states (58%), but not the South (43%). In large cities, 58% support impeachment; in small cities, 56%; in suburbs, 49%; in rural areas, 46%.

For comparison's sake, the author looked back at polls conducted around the question of whether Clinton should be impeached.

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

It should be no surprise that support for impeaching Clinton was always relatively weak. The Republicans, however, led by a few nuts with a fixation on getting Clinton out of office, managed to keep such an option before the public for months. (For an excellent book on this subject, written by someone who was on the ground floor to the hype and scandal-mongering, see David Brock's Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.) I can't help but wonder where the "liberal" media is now? Hmm. Maybe they're not so liberal after all.

The overarching question is: Did Bush lie? How you answer that determines whether or not you support impeachment, and whether or not the Congress ought to follow up on this matter. (It also reveals how well you've been paying attention.)

Happy Elections Day! Time for me to go vote!