Do the new House Ethics rules cover expenses being covered by a dictatorial regime that Congress passed a law vowing to change?
Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
The three anti-war Democrats made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush Administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. While traveling, they called for a diplomatic solution.
Prosecutors say that trip was arranged by Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a Michigan charity official, who was charged Wednesday with setting up the junket at the behest of Saddam’s regime. Iraqi intelligence officials allegedly paid for the trip through an intermediary and rewarded Al-Hanooti with 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil.
The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators “have no information whatsoever” any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrrre.  And Eliot Spitzer thought “john” meant the bathroom.
Aren’t rules about treason and sedition enforced anymore?
(And two of the three are Democratic superdelegates.  How precious.)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
And the attempt to distract from the broadening disaster in Iraq gets underway. Yes, Bruce, we should enforce the "rules" (usually quaintly referred to as "laws", but, you know, whatevs, this is the Bush admin), and your "surrrrre" will, I’m sure, be sufficient evidence under the "rules" to convict people of treason.
Why is it that some of our critics refuse to address the points in the post to which they attach their comments?
If they want to make such comments, why don’t they find a more appropriate post — or start their own blog?
Just wunderin’
***Aren’t rules about treason and sedition enforced anymore?***
If that were the case, the entire fringe left would be in jail.
If we had a real President Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have been hanged arleady.
"…in autumn 2002, two of [the three] declared on television news programs from Baghdad that they trusted Saddam Hussein at his word and did not trust President Bush…"
Pathetic. But remember: You can’t ever question their patriotism, nor accuse them of loving genocidal, megalomaniacal dictators.
Ah yes, Bagdad Jim, from my neck of the woods, the People’s Republic of Seattle, re-elected with something like 80% of the vote. Fortunately, I live across the lake in another city, but I still feel the shame.
The hell he didn’t know.
BTW, this is the same congressman who has been found guilty in civil court of violating Rep John Boehner’s civil rights for his part in a Democrat illegal wiretapping scandal.
Wiretapping Republicans without a search warrant? Hell yeah! Wiretap terrorist cell members talking to al Qaeda in Afghanistan? You’re trampling the Constitution!!!
I see that you fail to note that their trip was cleared and approved by the state department. Â Doesn’t that mean the trip was most likely approved by Republican appointees (ie, the Secretary of State)? Â So therefore, doesn’t that make Republicans also complicit in this? Â (Of course, there’s no better picture than Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s!) Â
Also, if their statements are true, this money was covered up in a religious charity who they believed was paying for the trip.
Doesn’t that mean the trip was most likely approved by Republican appointees (ie, the Secretary of State)?  So therefore, doesn’t that make Republicans also complicit in this?
Well yeah. I could see how an ignorant wretch would think that. Thanks for showing us what you really are.
(Of course, there’s no better picture than Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s!)
Personally, I think FDR’s fawning of "Uncle Joe" Stalin is far better. Not to mention his hiring Soviet spies in almost all levels of Washington. For my money, you can’t beat Jimmy Carter sucking up to Fidel Castro. Then, of course, there’s your beloved John F.You Kerry shaking hands with the VC and the video of him smearing his fellow soldiers.
And who could ever forget Hillary kissing Mrs. Arafat? Or how about our liberals practically fellating Hugo Chavez?
How about Clinton and Madeline Aldim giving nuclear material to Kim Jong Il?
I could go on, if you wish.
And the attempt to distract from the broadening disaster in Iraq gets underway.
You mean to tell me it wasn’t a "broadening disaster" all along? At what point, in your mind, were things going alright and then switch into a "broadening disaster"?
Further, will you admit that we’re now seeing what will happen if we give the Iraqis the finger and tell them to go fcuk themselves like the liberals demand?
Not only that, but while you’re masturbating furiously over the "broadening disaster" and the death toll, will you pause long enough to offer any kind of support or encouragement to our soldiers in-country?
Doesn’t that mean the trip was most likely approved by Republican appointees (ie, the Secretary of State)?  So therefore, doesn’t that make Republicans also complicit in this?
Well how about you actually investigate your premise (that State Department political appointees evualated a request and approved it) before reaching a conclusion?
It’s not immediately clear if this rises to the level of "treason and sedition."Â If the Congressman knowingly traveled to Iraq on Saddam’s bill, they could plausibly be charged with being unregistered lobbyists for a foreign power.
Doesn’t that mean the trip was most likely approved by Republican appointees (ie, the Secretary of State)?  So therefore, doesn’t that make Republicans also complicit in this?
Kindly inform me of the times a member of congress has been barred from travel to a foreign country at the political whim of a partisan President. Suppose the Secretary of State had denied their request, would that have been accepted as protocol as usual? And "complicit" has a specific legal meaning. Just what charge is Kevin making here? Would he have the state department do an in-depth investigation of every congressional travel request? Never mind that such an act challenges the system of checks and balances and would cause endless delay and much needless expense.
Didn’t Speaker Pelosi run off to Damascus after being asked to reconsider the trip? Â I suppose that makes the Republicans "complicit" in her making a total ass of herself.
Isn’t this the trip where Baghdad Jim McDermott stated on national TV that he believed Bush is a liar?
In the coverage of this story, I haven’t heard that mentioned. I first heard about the story on Mark Levin the other day.
 What "broadening disaster" in Iraq? You mean how the Iraqi government has identified an enemy of the nation and is now taking the lead to remove that threat to their security and sovereignty? The very same militias that Democrats and other liberal liars were just recently criticizing al Maliki over, claiming that he was unwilling to take them on which they claimed was proof there was no progress in Iraq
If Iraq doesnt fight the militiasthen the war is a failure! If Iraq fights the militias , the war is a failure!
Precisely why the anti-war movement is dying, why their rallies are increasingly anemic and why the polls show majorities of Americans recognize the progress in Iraq and believe success is not only possible, but desireable — the left has no serious arguments.
There is very little daylight left between liberalism and  schizophrenia.
As though a congressman doesn’t ask himself, "Who do I owe for this?"Â Frequent Flier Miles?
#7: "I see that you fail to note that their trip was cleared and approved by the state department.  Doesn’t that mean the trip was most likely approved by Republican appointees (ie, the Secretary of State)?  So therefore, doesn’t that make Republicans also complicit in this?"
Complicit in what, Kevin? You haven’t acknowledged that these idiots should not have been in Iraq on their shameful Treason Tour ’02 in the fuc*ing first place. You wouldn’t have cared if Saddam flew these losers over to Iraq on a golden broomstick. Until you are prepared to condemn the trip itself and the fact that these weasels favored the word of a mass-murdering dictator over that of our President, take your sissified "state department approval" bs and cram it.
P.S. Kevin’s silly interjection in this debate reminds me of those pacifist idiots who were doing everything in their power to protest the war and condemn Bush and the U.S. simply because they oppose war under ANY circumstances, period. Then, a couple of years later (prior to the surge) these same fools were suddenly arguing for an immediate pull out because the war was "unwinnable" and irrevocably "lost" because Bush’s "flawed" strategy had failed. So, they believe war is NEVER the answer, but they still believed they were entitled to argue that Bush’s military strategy was all wrong ("…because he should have pledged more troops and he didn’t implement an effective counter-insurgency strategy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…)
Sorry, but if you’re a mealy-mouthed pacifist, you don’t get to nitpick what troops were deployed where and when, and for how long, etc. Similarly, if you have no problem with the treasonous activities of the Congressmen in your party, you don’t get the snide luxury of picking apart who may or may not have administratively rubber-stamped and/or FUNDED the treason.