From Leo K.
O’Drudy III: Dick Morris uses words like “deceivers”
and “misled” when discussing the U.S. intelligence community’s
assessments of Iraq’s WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs in
his Feb. 4 column (“Bush needs to become prosecutor, not
defendant”). But it’s possible to draw wrong conclusions based on
honest effort.
While careful to note that the CIA, etc., may
have done a good job in other areas, Morris fails to note that our
intelligence agencies may have come to the most reasonable
conclusion possible on this issue based on available
evidence.
Why would the CIA have lied? Let’s remember that
the CIA, together with the State Department, has been far from a
cheerleader for war. Furthermore, even the war’s strongest critics
at home and abroad, from Sen. John Kerry to the French and Germans,
assumed the existence of Saddam’s WMDs. They just refused, when the
time came to follow through on “grave consequences” over Saddam’s
refusal to take advantage of his “last chance,” to support the
effort to do something real about it.
Does Morris believe the
president’s credibility will be enhanced by whining about being
“misled” by the entire world and demanding that heads roll in Paris,
Berlin and Boston as well?
What’s being ignored in the
growing hysteria is that Saddam consistently wanted WMDs, hated
America, sheltered and funded terrorists, and was an aggressive,
unpredictable mass murderer. He had weapons scientists and the human
capital necessary to restart his program at any time, as soon as the
heat was off. The fact that we found no major weapon caches should
be a source of relief, not recrimination, because we acted in time
and before it was too late. Fairfax,
Va.
Scientology not
pure
From Barbara
Graham: In her letter Feb. 5 , the Rev. Susan Taylor,
president of the Church of Scientology, claims that her church has
turned over a new leaf. The Rev. Taylor is being disingenuous when
she claims the Internal Revenue Service granted Scientology
religious recognition. That is not a function of the IRS. In fact,
the organization acquired tax-exempt status by
coercion.
Since 2000, Scientology has worked to discredit
people who protest its attacks on apostates and critics. The
Scientology organization actively suborned perjury to destroy the
career of attorney Graham Berry. The group also wielded its
influence in a court case involving critic Keith Henson, now a
fugitive in Canada.
Last year, the San Diego Criminal
Intelligence Unit visited me prior to my address to the county Board
of Supervisors in opposition to a Narconon facility planned in San
Diego. An anonymous caller accused me of planning to bomb a “church”
of Scientology!
Narconon is one of the “social programs”
mentioned by the Rev. Taylor. Narconon is a recruitment tool for the
Church of Scientology, supposedly dedicated to dealing with social
problems. It provides opportunities for Scientology to promote
itself as promoting secular programs, “based upon the teachings of
L. Ron Hubbard.”
Hubbard’s teachings, as well as his life,
have been debunked by legitimate scholars.
I wish to set the
record straight here. People can easily research any of the names or
topics I’ve mentioned. There is plenty of evidence online that
clearly reveals that Scientology hasn’t changed since the 1970s.
Look for yourselves. San Diego, Calif. Rule of 7 issues still being litigated
From Morton Rosenberg, specialist in
American public law, Congressional Research Service: I’d
like to point out some errors of omission in your Jan. 27 article
“Waxman testing 7-member rule for access to lobbying
file.”
First, the Jan. 22 California district court decision
in Waxman v. Evans was vacated by the 9th Circuit [Court of
Appeals] and remanded to the district court with instructions to
dismiss the action as moot.
Second, in the litigation before
the district court, the Justice Department [DoJ] attorneys
inexplicably did not challenge the standing of the 16 plaintiff
members under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Raines v. Byrd,
521 U.S. 811 (1997), or whether the Rule of Seven statute gave them
a judicially enforceable right, i.e., whether the court had
jurisdiction.
When DoJ lost, it moved to reconsider based on
those misplaced issues. The district court denied the motion as both
untimely and not evidencing the necessary “highly unusual
circumstances” required for such a motion. ...
There is no
precedential court ruling upholding the Rule of Seven, and any
future enforcement action will have overcome the substantial
unresolved standing and jurisdictional hurdles.
Finally, the
oft-quoted University of Baltimore law professor “involved in the
issue” is not identified as the author of an amicus brief filed on
behalf of the member plaintiffs in the 9th
Circuit. Washington, D.C.
Gun control a political loser
From Doug Denehie: In
response to your Feb. 3 article (“Gun control reappears as political
issue”), gun control is a loser everywhere west of the Mississippi,
except California, and a loser in the South and most of the Midwest.
I personally will never agree with it, as the only logical
approach is unrelenting pursuit of criminals. Everywhere there is
strong gun control, there is higher crime than in areas where gun
ownership is unrestricted. That is the fact, like it or not.
Anyone with a sixth-grade education knows criminals don’t want
to be shot. Ocean Springs,
Miss.
