Weldon in Bangladesh

Yep, straight from the Bangladesh Daily Star.

The article repeatedly refers to Weldon as a US congressman, rather than a former congressman.

"Bangladesh has so many positive things, but unfortunately, the US doesn't have any strategic relation with the country," visiting US Congressman Curt Weldon said yesterday adding that from both demographical and geographical perspectives, Bangladesh is of high strategic importance to the US.

The member of the US House of Representatives was talking at a press conference at the Jatiya Press Club organised by Global Alliance for Homeland Security (GAHS), Asian Regional Chapter.

At the invitation of GAHS, Weldon and seven others came to Dhaka on Monday.

Stressing the need for building strategic relation between the two countries, Weldon said, "As we concentrate on Pakistan and India, why don't we pay attention to Bangladesh when she has significant achievements in various aspects."

The US Congressman also gave assurance that he along with his colleagues would muster support for duty-free access for Bangladeshi products to the US market. "The US should import all the products from Bangladesh that she imports from other countries," he added.

Some background from Wikipedia: Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world with about 145 million people (1/2 US population) in an area the size of a square 235 miles on each side. The per capita income in 2004 was a low US$440. Although two-thirds of Bangladeshis are farmers, more than three quarters of Bangladesh’s export earnings come from the garment industry,[26] which began attracting foreign investors in the 1980s due to cheap labour and low conversion cost.

From the article: Weldon also noted that Bangladesh could be the alternative to China for supplying readymade garment products to the US market and it should be the primary supplier.

Hey, kids, a new source of cheap labor to exploit! Way to go, Curt. Sounds like Curt's fishing for a donation to his favorite charity (himself) under the presumption that he has influence with congress to "muster support for duty-free access for Bangladeshi products to the US market." I wonder if they make prison uniforms? Maybe Curt was getting fitted.

In the most ironic sentence in the article: "Hailing the ongoing drive against corrupt politicians and others, Weldon expressed hope that a fair and free election would be held in Bangladesh eventually." Really? Weldon is in favor of a drive against corrupt politicians? Since when? Did he vote for Joe too?

The trip, appeared to be an official US delegation (quote: "the visiting US mission"), but Weldon was joined by fellow Defense Solutions employee, Timothy Ringgold, under the banner of the "Global Alliance for Homeland Security (GAHS), the Asian Regional Chapter". A google search turns up little more about GAHS than the news article about this trip. How many chapters does this dubious organization have?

Though the article does correctly refer to Weldon as "the former vice-chair of the Armed Services Committee and House of Homeland Security Committee", all other indications in the article suggested he is still a sitting congressman. How odd they conveyed that impression. It was bad enough when he spent 20 years posing as a representative of the voters of the 7th district while voting with the special interests. I guess he found a place where is stances against minimum wage laws won't be a problem.

BTW, the Delco GOP is desperate to find someone to take on Sestak in 2008. Could you guys give me a hint? I'd love to replace the Weldon picture with one of the next victim (um, I mean candidate).

For the Delco GOP they need someone that is well known, but has no aspirations that would be curtailed by a crushing defeat. Pat Meehan's name has popped up a few times. But, he may be interested in Governor's race in 2010. Would he run as a one-term congressman just to unseat Sestak? Would he risk losing a local congressional race thus crippling any chance at higher office?

Maybe they are waiting to see the results of last Fall's FBI probe to find out which potential candidates turn up in the wire-tap transcripts.
Imaginary transcript we'll never see: "Don't worry about being wire-tapped. Good old _____ always tips us off before we get investigated."

Unfair and Unbalanced: Fox goes after Sestak

A FOX News watchgroup (NewsHounds) posted the clip and well as a description of last night's attack of Sestak on Hannity and Colmes. See: "Congressman Joe Sestak smeared on FOX News"

Question: Why is it that Joe is receiving the Hannity treatment?

Answer: Because Joe is a point-man for the Democrats on Iraq. Joe's performance on Meet the Press must have rattled the neocons at FOX, so they needed an unbalanced segment with one anti-CAIR (anti-Joe, pro-Hannity) guest. The implication is that CAIR is radical/un-American, so by extension Joe must not be a "good" American. To help sell this, they bring in a Canadian author, and high-school drop-out, Mark Steyn.

To his credit, Colmes ably defended Joe's right and obligation to address his constitutents and to express his point of view.

Hannity, complained that CAIR was defending the Imams. Since Hannity clearly feels that innocent Muslims have no rights in the post-9/11 America, CAIR is taking a radical position. He also complained that CAIR tried to pressure advertisers to drop some of his fellow (i.e. right-wing) talk show brethren. He views that as an "attempt to silence people they don't agree with". (I guess screening for callers that agree with you and cutting off ones that manage to make a point doesn't fall into this category?)
This is all a transparent attempt to undermine Joe's stance on the Iraq War. By implying that he likes to meet with terrorists (or at least sympathizers), they are doubling-down on their (false) argument that bringing home the troops helps the "enemy".

Being smeared by Hannity is a badge of honor, because it shows you are making progress and they are getting desparate.

If we had wanted Islamaphobes in office, we'd still have Weldon and Santorum. Anyone swayed by these hollow arguments to drop their support of Joe forgets why we elected him.

They (the vast-right-wing conspiracy, neocons, etc. :-) ) are testing your threshold for backing down and they keep raising the ante (as well as the anti). Hang tough Joe.

Sestak Meets the Press

Joe will be the only sitting member of Congress to participate in Tim Russert's panel tomorrow, March 18. The entire show will be dedicated to marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War.

The other panel members will include: Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas); Former Representative Tom Andrews (D-Maine); and neocon stalwart Richard Perle.

Don't We Have More Important Things to CAIR About?

There's a mini tempest in a teapot brewing against Joe Sestak for his agreement to speak at a C.A.I.R. (Council on American-Islamic Relations) event.
Recent opinion articles against Sestak (wrongly) attempt to portray him as practically a terrorist sympathizer for merely talking to the group (that according to some, supports the worst of Hamas).

The critics conveniently ignore that Hamas was democratically elected into the majority party Palestinian National Authority. This result that necessitates dialog and engagement on the issues and an acknowledgement that Hamas is a valid political entity that should be encourage to pursue politically solutions.

The critics try to portray Sestak's upcoming event at a local synagogue as inconsistent and call for him to withdraw from the CAIR event. (Notice, we don't hear the CAIR group requesting that Sestak withdraw from the synagogue event.)

The way the Bush administration freezes assets, wiretaps, detains and deports anybody they merely suspect of terrorist ties (without evidence or legal authority), CAIR could not exist in the current climate if it was as bad as Sestak's critics portray it.

It should be no suprise that local Archie Bunker wannabee, Gil Spencer, waded deeper into the cess-pool. Delco Times: Sestak May Want to be CAIR-ful
Spencer uses Daniel Pipes (crediting him as a "world-renowned expert on Islamic terrorism" to define the CAIR organization:

"For starters," he says, "it’s on the wrong side in the war against terrorism."
He points out that after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR dragged its feet on officially recognizing Osama bin Laden as the culprit, but that was in keeping with the group’s consistently defending known and suspected Islamic terrorists. (neo-cons like Spencer, and Bush/Cheney, believe suspect=guilty and no trial/proof required)
....
CAIR was founded and supported with Saudi money and, since its inception, has refused to admit Hamas is a terrorist organization. It was Hamas that was responsible for the murder of 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.

CAIR’s known activities and connections led the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, Steve Pomerantz, to announce, "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively (but not ACTUALLY) give aid to international terrorist groups."

Spencer (as usual) fails to research or present any balance before declaring Daniel Pipes an expert or investigate any bias: From Wikipedia article on Mr. Pipes

On the other hand, a 1983 Washington Post book review by Thomas W. Lippman stated that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims ... he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them". It said his book "is marred by exaggerations, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject" while admitting that "[f]ew other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history" and that his "book is a valuable contribution to our understanding" (Washington Post, December 11, 1983).

Pipes' Middle East Forum sparked controversy in September 2002 when it established a website called Campus Watch which said that it identified five problems in the teaching of Middle Eastern studies at American universities: "analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students". Students were encouraged to submit reports regarding teachers, books and curricula. The project was accused of "McCarthyesque intimidation" of professors who criticized Israel, when it published a "blacklist" of professors. In protest, more than 100 academics demanded to be listed as well. Campus Watch subsequently removed the list from their website. [8] [9] [10]

Peace Institute appointment

In April 2003, President Bush nominated Pipes for the board of the federally sponsored U.S. Institute of Peace, on which Douglas Feith was already serving. Soon afterwards, a broad array of Arab-American, American Muslim, and other groups, vehemently denounced the appointment, claiming that Pipes was an "anti-Islamic extremist". A The Washington Post editorial suggested that many Muslims viewed Pipes' nomination as a "sort of cruel joke".[11] The Arab American Institute, headed by James Zogby, stated "For decades Daniel Pipes has displayed a bizarre obsession with all things Arab and Muslim. Now, it appears that his years of hatred and bigotry have paid off with a presidential appointment. One shudders to think how he will abuse this position to tear at the fabric of our nation."

Christopher Hitchens, who is also a prominent critic of Islamists, also expressed "bafflement" at this appointment in a critical essay entitled "Daniel Pipes is not a man of peace" in Slate. [5] Hitchens wrote that Pipes "employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him" and that this contradicted the USIP's position as "a somewhat mild organization [...] devoted to the peaceful resolution of conflict." Hitchens concluded his opposition to Pipes' nomination by saying that Pipes "confuses scholarship with propaganda" and pursues "petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity."

The other "commentary" piece I found against Sestak was by Beila Rabinowitz in the Evening Bulletin: Setak Must Recind his Ties to CAIR. Gee, now it's ties?
Beila is the directory of the Militant Islam Monitor website. Their "LINKS" page http://www.militantislammonitor.org/links.php lists Daniel Pipes at the top as well as sites like Campus Watch, Anti-CAIR, etc. It also lists PipelineNews. (Note: Pipeline also had anti-Sestak hit piece, written by, Beila Rabinowitz.)

AS far as I can tell, we seem to have an anti-Islamic group run by bigots, zealots, paranoids and hypocrits that is attempting to generate media attention to pressure a congressman into cancelling an event. A fool like Gil Spencer seems more than happy to follow along to attack Sestak.

No one seems to consider that having people like Joe Sestak talk to Islamic groups is a positive way to improve American-Islamic Relations (the AIR of CAIR). This stands in contrast to the hot-AIR (Anti-Islamic-Rhetoric) of Gil Spencer, Daniel Pipes and Beila Rabinowitz.

Instead of all the hot-air, we need cool reason (like the voters had in November when they made a change for the better).

MorningCall: 'The hour is late, but the agenda is long' for Sestak

This March 5, 200 article on Joe Sestack in the Morning Call really struck me. What stands out is Sestak's "hold no grudges" attitude and his work ethic.

If interested, please do check out the article. Here's one excerpt:

Perhaps, though, it's a picture to the right of Sestak's desk that tells the biggest story of his career. In the black-and-white photo of President John F. Kennedy speaking. ''The hour is late, but the agenda is long,'' the caption reads.

''He is not a go-along to get-along kind of guy,'' former Navy Secretary John Dalton said of Sestak. Dalton headed the Navy when Sestak served as President Clinton's director for defense policy at the National Security Council in the 1990s.''He wants to make things happen,'' Dalton said. ''He is committed to change.''