|
Banned
|
On display for all the world to see:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/po...gewanted=print
November 17, 2005
Transcript
House Republicans Respond to Murtha
The following is a transcript of a news conference Thursday by House Republicans, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.
SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KAY GRANGER (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GEOFF DAVIS (R-KY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILSON (R-SC)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CONAWAY (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM TANCREDO (R-CO)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID DREIER (R-CA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BOB BEAUPREZ (R-CO)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CARTER (R-TX)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JEAN SCHMIDT (R-OH)
HUNTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. And I'm joined by my colleagues today to make some comments regarding the recent congressional initiatives that would call for an immediate pullout of American forces from Iraq.
You know, American military operations have two phases. In the attack phase there's great patriotism, there's a groundswell of support for the troops and much flag waving.
The second phase is a more difficult phase. That's a time when you have casualties. That's the time when you make incremental gains. And it's a time when you sometimes see faltering political support. That always happens. And right now in the war-fighting theater in Iraq, we're in the second phase.
And I thought that we would talk a little bit about what's at stake, because I think that the attack on 9/11 is something that Americans have not forgotten, and I think they understand that the aggressive operations of America's military have helped to keep the insurgents in the war against terror off balance.
That's why Americans today are able to go to parks, go to schools, go to the grocery store, live life without fear of having a second 9/11 attacks, and that's why four years have expired without a second attack on our homeland: because we've aggressively projected America's fighting forces in the theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are doing a superb job.
Interestingly, this fall-off of support among Democratic ranks is not shared by the war-fighting forces. It's not shared by our troops. In fact, we're seeing now letters coming out of Iraq, with some that point with dismay toward the initiatives in the Senate that, thankfully, were rejected, that would call for a timetable for withdrawal.
HUNTER: And now we have an initiative in the House that calls for immediate withdrawal.
You know, one thing that we've learned in this century -- in winning the world for freedom in World War I, World War II and the Cold War -- is that freedom around the world is in America's interest. We have freed hundreds of millions of people in Europe, and that's accrued to the benefit of generations of Americans.
And we are in the process of delivering a free Iraq and delivering a nation that will be, instead of an enemy of the United States, a friend of the United States in a very strategic area of the world, that will not be a platform for terrorists, that will have a modicum of democracy and therefore not be a threat to the United States.
And I just wanted to remind our friends that now is the time for endurance. It's easy to be a flag-waver and to be patriotic and to support the troops when you're in the initial attack phase and it looks like you may have only a two-week war.
Lots of our enemies think America is only capable of a two-week war and that we don't have the endurance for the hard, tough battle of winning a war, securing the peace, providing the military shield and building up a country and building up its democratic institutions at the same time.
In fact, we do.
And I think that the Democrats who have undertaken this initiative have made a mistake. I think they've underestimated the toughness of the American people and the understanding that if we don't change the world, the world is going to change us.
And right now, in Iraq, we are changing the world. We're changing a very strategic part of the world in such a way that it will not be a threat to the United States and, in fact, will be an ally in the global war against terror.
So I just wanted to offer those words today, as the other side in this debate, as opposed to the statements that have been offered on the Senate side and now, regrettably, on the House side also, calling for withdrawal from the war-fighting theaters in Iraq.
HUNTER: And Kay Granger put this conference together, and I'd like to ask Kay Granger of Texas to make a few comments.
GRANGER: Thank you very much.
Like most of the members up here, I've traveled to Iraq. I've stood at the foot of a mass grave that held thousands of the remains of Iraqis that were killed by Saddam Hussein.
And I traveled to Iraq and I listened to our men and women in uniform who told me how proud they are of what they're doing, and some with tears in their eyes, because they say, The people understand it back home? Do they still support us? Are they still with us? And I've also worked with the women of Iraq who literally risked their lives to run for office so that they could be a part of writing a constitution and having a form of democracy -- and, as they said to me, and having the freedoms, Kay Granger, that you have in the United States.
That's all I can speak of as far as being a member like that. But I think it speaks best, and I'm going to quote Army Major General William Webster, who just yesterday -- now, he's the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division; he's responsible for three-fourths of the security in Iraq's capital.
And this is what he said. No one can say it better than he said.
Setting a date would mean that 221 soldiers I've lost this year -- that their lives would have been lost in vain. Our troops are trying to get this accomplished. They believe they're doing the right thing. The soldiers believe they're helping. I think this: Bringing them home now is a recipe for disaster. Setting a date is a loser. That's what he says. He's there. He's risking his life and the lives of men and women. That's what we're all about.
ROS-LEHTINEN: I'm Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a member of the International Relations Committee. I represent Miami, Florida.
My stepson, Douglas Lehtinen, and his fiancee are currently serving as Marine officers in Iraq. They are flying F-18s. They enlisted. They're proud to serve their country.
And when we have the ability to communicate with Dougie and Lindsey almost daily about what they're going through, they are very proud of their mission. They're proud of their service. And they know that pulling out now is a serious mistake, not just for the morale of our troops -- who understand their mission -- but also it would be a great defeat for the Iraqi people, who have struggled for so long to build up their country and to make sure that they have democratic governance.
ROS-LEHTINEN: They have ridden themselves of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who had mass graves, who used chemical weapons against his own people. We cannot abandon the Iraqi people now. They need us now more than ever.
To pull out now, to surrender now is to give back to the terrorists a country that they don't deserve. The Iraqi people deserve to be free, free of tyranny, free of these terrorist insurgents. And that's what our military is doing: ridding the Iraqi people of these insurgents and bringing democracy, freedom, hope, the rule of law and true governance to their country.
And I have been in Iraq, as well. And we had a historic, all- female delegation where we had the opportunity to meet with brave women of Iraq who said, Finally, now we are free, and finally, now my children have a future that we can look forward to.
Let us not surrender now. Let us have an exit strategy that is built on success.
And as President Bush said, we will stand down when the Iraqi security forces are able to stand up.
Thank you.
HUNTER: Geoff Davis, a former Army officer and member of the Armed Services Committee.
DAVIS: I'm Geoff Davis from Kentucky, a member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, and also the co- chair of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.
I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made.
Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress.
And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.
I think, most importantly, that the soldiers and the Marines on the ground in Iraq have made the statement that with their unbelievable, unprecedented reenlistment rates -- I've talked with hundreds of soldiers and Marines, ranging from junior enlisted soldiers to my West Point classmates who I've known for nearly 30 years and served with in the Middle East myself as a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, and they believe in the mission. DAVIS: They see the success. And they ask me, Why is politics consuming this mission that we are clearly winning?
And I would say this for all to hear in America, as well as for our enemies who watch this broadcast: that our exit strategy is winning and supporting the Iraqi people.
HAYWORTH: J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 5.
No need to sugarcoat what has transpired today. People talk about exit strategies. Well, let's let the American people decide.
As was mentioned earlier, the majority's exit strategy is victory and freedom for the people of Iraq. Now, sadly, many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender. The American people will not stand for surrender. The American people are made of sterner stuff. And the American people understand that if we turn tail and leave now more problems will visit our shores and the consequences will be far greater. And, if there's a doubt, take a look at the people of Old Europe. Take a look at the French. Take a look at what is transpiring in the streets of France.
Saddam Hussein has been deposed; he is behind bars. That is an unqualified success. Dare we now snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, plagued by poll-driven self-doubt of those who embrace surrender?
I don't believe the American people will stand for it.
I believe the American people have a simple approach. We prevail. We are victorious. Freedom prevails in the Middle East and we say no to the spread of Islamo-fascism around the globe.
WILSON: I'm Joe Wilson. I'm very grateful to be a member of the Armed Services Committee. I'm also a 31-year veteran of the Army National Guard. And I'm also very, very grateful that I had a son serve for a year in Iraq.
And I know, from my five visits to Iraq and a visit to Afghanistan, that we're winning the war on terrorism.
WILSON: The clearest example of that was, obviously, the adoption of the constitution. There were many naysayers who said the constitution couldn't even be developed.
I met with the chairman of the drafting commission and I had a feeling when I met with him that the people of Iraq do want to live in freedom, they do want to live in democracy, which then provides a protection for the people of the United States. In all of my military studies, retreat and defeat is not an option of the American military. This will only bring greater conflict in the world and ultimately to the United States, particularly in light of the attacks in Amman, Jordan, last week. Dozens of Jordanians and Palestinians were murdered by homicide bombers. We've had the bombings of buses in London, the bombings of buses in our ally of India and New Delhi.
We do not, obviously, want to see that return to the streets of the United States. We will not forget September the 11th. I'm confident the American people will stand firm in the war on terrorism.
<b>HUNTER: David Dreier, the son of a Marine Corps drill instructor and our chairman of the Rules Committee.</b>
DREIER: This month marks the first anniversary of the very incredible and tragic war in Fallujah. In that battle, I lost the one and only constituent that I have, J.P. Blecksmith (ph). He was in the Marine Corps. His father was a Marine. And his father recently said to me that, The single worst thing that we could do for the life of my son, the name of my son, would be to withdraw from Iraq.
Unfortunately, we have not seen much reporting of the incredible ripple effect that our involvement there has had. And I will tell you that a few months ago I had the privilege to go to Egypt before the elections were held there, and I sat in a country that has been a military dictatorship, through Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak.
And I sat with the defense minister of Egypt, who said to me that, Because of what the United States of America has done in Iraq, we, for the first time in our nation's history, will be holding multi- candidate elections.
I then went to Beirut and stood in Martyrs Square next to the grave site of Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minister who was tragically killed in a car bombing, as you all know. And a young student said to me that, Because of what the United States of America has done in Iraq, I'm willing to die to ensure that the Lebanese people do not face the repression imposed on us by the Syrians.
DREIER: I have the utmost respect for my colleague Jack Murtha. My father was a Marine. Jack Murtha was a very proud Marine. And I have worked with him for the last quarter century on the struggle for liberation in Central America and in other spots throughout the world -- in military conflicts.
And he was the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He's now the ranking minority member of that subcommittee.
And for the first time that I can remember, I totally disagree with his assessment and I believe that it would be an absolute mistake and a real insult to the lives that have been lost and those today who are continuing this struggle for freedom if we were to withdraw.
TANCREDO: Tom Tancredo, 6th Congressional District of Colorado.
I have no doubt that, during the darkest days of the Second World War, when reports came back to this country of the number of casualties that we took in, let's say, taking Iwo Jima or in the Battle of the Bulge, I have no doubt that there were Americans who said, God, I wish this was over with. God, I wish those troops could come home.
But I doubt that there were many that said at the same time that they were willing to do it before the job was done and before victory was achieved.
That's, sort of, where we are today. I want every American out of Iraq. In fact, I want them out of that peninsula. I want that to happen as soon as we get that job done.
I have no idea what motivates the people who stand up and call for an immediate withdrawal. I have no doubt that some are motivated by the finest of altruistic ideas and the greatest desire to do what they believe is right for America. I have also no doubt that some are doing it for the crassest and basest of political reasons.
But for whatever reason someone puts that proposition forward, I would suggest that the job is not done and that to leave today, as my colleagues have said, creates a world in which I think we are far more vulnerable, a far uglier place for us all to exist; where when we complete this mission -- and we will -- we will have the opportunity to see the spread of a wonderful idea throughout the world, and that is freedom.
TANCREDO: It's just possible that we can do this. And I am willing to take the risk, to stay the course, and to get this job done and to get every American back home.
LUNGREN: I'm Dan Lungren. I'm from the 3rd Congressional District in California.
I returned to Congress after an absence of 16 years, motivated by the events of 9/11. I don't serve on the Armed Services Committee, but I do serve on the Homeland Security Committee and am very concerned about anything that makes us more vulnerable here at home.
I am disappointed. I say this in sorrow, rather than in anger, of some of the comments that I've seen coming from our colleagues, both in the House and the Senate.
Particularly am I disappointed in that this comes immediately after the declassification of that correspondence between two of the leaders of Al Qaida, in which they talked about the stakes in this war in Iraq and in which they made specific reference to us leaving Vietnam as an example of what they hoped would happen in Iraq. That was very real to me because when I was here before I represented a district that had tens of thousands of refugees from Southeast Asia. And meeting those people and talking with those people and seeing in their eyes the disappointment that America had left them behind makes me hope that we're dedicated to never having that happen again. And so I hope that if we have a debate on this issue, it will be of the highest level and we will understand what is at stake here. And as I say, I am extremely disappointed, in sorrow rather than in anger, at what's happened. Because I think it ultimately will be very, very damaging to our position, not only in Iraq, but in the entire war on terror.
HUNTER: Bob Beauprez, Colorado?
BEAUPREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for coming.
I'll confess, I come with a bit of a heavy heart. America is not a place that I think of as a land populated by people that basically cut and run.
I have a ethnic group in my district -- Hmong, people from Vietnam -- and we did that to them. We left them behind so that the communists could slaughter them as we left Vietnam. But that's not America's finest hour. We don't need another one of those. I'll tell you who will tell you categorically to stay and finish the job...
(AUDIO GAP)
BEAUPREZ: ... last name for now because I've not asked his permission to give it.
When I called Jerry (ph) -- and he was obviously in tears, very heavy tears -- I got to the point of the conversation -- and this happens in every single of the five or six that I have made -- point of the conversation: What can I possibly do for you, father or mother, now that you've lost your son? And they say, He believed in the mission. His life had a purpose. He knew the risk he was taking. You make sure that he didn't die in vain. You finish the job.
Now, folks, it can't be any better put than in the words of parents who are grieving over the loss of a child.
I'll tell you another story. Some say the Iraqis don't want us there, they'd like us to leave. When I was there in November of '03, the first time I went, I had a small Iraqi woman who couldn't speak English who simply had to come up and embrace me when she was told I was a member of the United States Congress: wrapped both arms around me and buried her face in my chest and would not let go. This is a small, little Muslim woman who is very reserved around men, especially foreign men, but when she heard, He represents the United States of America, she had to demonstrate her thanks and her appreciation, her hope that she thought never would show its face in her life or even her mind. Now, are we going to dampen that hope? Are we going to just turn and run and, worse than pour ice water on these people, turn them back to a future that I think is unimaginable? That's not the America that we know. That's not the America that I'm going to stand back here and defend and represent.
This is a tough day.
BEAUPREZ: This is a tough day.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to show that there's another face. God bless you.
HUNTER: Mike Conaway from Fort Hood?
CONAWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Two things. One, the people who live in Iraq today are coming out of 30-plus years of having to pick the right side in conflicts. And if they pick the wrong side, they pay for that pick with their lives.
We have to show these people that we're going to stay and win this war.
We're at war with an idea that's currently being fought for the most part in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the war goes around the world and it will come to the streets of America. So we should continue to fight that war.
Let me put out another name for you. Last year at this time, I was congressman-elect. And a young man was killed from my hometown. And I went over to sit with his young wife, Amy. And Amy was pregnant, at that point in time, seven months pregnant, with twins, twin kids, twin boys who will never see their dad. And in the midst of the most crushing grief you could imagine, she looked at me and, tears pouring down her face, she said, You tell the president -- from Midland, Texas -- you tell the president to finish this job and don't let my husband, Brian, have died in vain. And that's the message. We're paying a terrible price, a horrible price -- all 2,000-plus lives that have been sacrificed in this fight; each one of them is precious. We all have all those kinds of stories. But they were volunteers. They knew what they were going for. They knew why they were going to do it. And the story, coming back is they don't understand the stories in the American press as to what's going on in Iraq. So a part of our job, a part of our failure, is that we've not done a good job of putting up a right face on what is happening in Iraq. We are winning. That election will happen next month. A five- year or four-year parliament will be elected and we will see progress made. So I disagree wholeheartedly with our colleagues on the other side who call for a timetable and especially those who would call for an immediate withdrawal. I would like to add my voice to that group. Thank you.
HUNTER: Louie Gohmert?
GOHMERT: When I was in Iraq earlier this year, talking to a former general under Saddam Hussein, he said -- and he was a Sunni -- and he said, If you will just stay with us, just back us up long enough for us to get a constitution and then to vote and elect our own people -- just do that, please. He really said, I believe most of the violence will subside.
But the messages that are being sent today tell our enemies over there, those who would destroy freedom and our way of life, just like Osama bin Laden said early on, They don't have the stomach to finish the job.
Well, a majority has the stomach to finish the job and we're going to finish it.
And you expect people like that to come up. You'll have a parent or two here, as you know, whose tragic grief from the tragic loss of a loved one, of a child, causes their mental thinking to be a little destabilized. That's understandable. But the vast majority of parents know that pulling out now means their child died in vain. And there are a majority of us that do not want to see that happen. And, thank God, we've got a president that feels the same way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CARTER: I'm John Carter from Texas. I represent the part of Texas that contains Fort Hood, the home of the 4th Infantry Division which was the division that captured Saddam Hussein, and the home of the 1st Cavalry Division, the division that held the first successful election in the history of Iraq.
CARTER: I have been over there twice, am going back a third time hopefully in February, because the 4th I.D. has gone back to Iraq.
And I'm here to tell you that the soldiers that are going to war on behalf of this country are the best people on Earth, and they do not deserve to have people bail out on them and take the cowardly way out and say, We're going to surrender.
Because, quite frankly, we have to stay the course not only for the benefit of the people of Iraq and the Middle East, but for the benefit of our soldiers who have given everything they have and are willing to go back and go back and go back because they know they're doing the right thing.
You never hear about the hospitals we've opened, the sewer systems we've installed, the fact that, while battling insurgents in the streets, the 1st Cavalry Division, while fighting soldiers in the streets, were picking up children out of garbage piles, clearing the garbage off the street, collecting the garbage that hadn't been picked up in nine years in Sadr city. These are the kind of things that you're not going to hear about, but it's the kind of things that our soldiers are willing to do for the people of Iraq. And we cannot allow ourselves to bail out on those people when we are sitting on the verge of success. We have a huge success. In fact, if you weigh this war against any other war in any other period in the history of the United States, we are very, very successful. But you need to study your history and realize that this is a well-run, successful war and will go to a conclusion which will be of great value to the Middle East.
I support our troops. I think that Mr. Murtha was absolutely wrong to start proposing a surrender provision, as far as I'm concerned.
Thank you.
SCHMIDT: I'm Jean Schmidt. I'm from the 2nd District in Ohio. I'm the newest person on the block. And this morning I spent time at the Arlington National Cemetery watching, witnessing, being part of a funeral of one of my fallen heroes in my district.
SCHMIDT: And I walked away from there seeing the glorious graves of the people that have fought for our freedom more resolved than ever to make sure we keep the enemy on their shore and not ours. You know, you all are not getting the big picture. The big picture is that these Islamic insurgents want to destroy us. They don't like us. They don't like us because we're black, we're white, we're Christian, we're Jew, we're educated, we're free, we're not Islamic. We can never be Islamic because we were not born Islamic. Now, this isn't the Islamic citizens. These are the insurgents. And it is their desire for us to leave so they can take over the whole Middle East and then take over the world. And I didn't learn this just in the last few weeks or the last few months. I learned this when I was at the University of Cincinnati in 1970, studying Middle Eastern history. And I was told by a very valuable professor, one that I still remember, Wie Zuefabushi (ph). He was Palestinian. He said, If we don't create freedom in that region it's going to come back and attack us. And this was during Vietnam, when everybody thought the issue was Vietnam. And he said, No, the issue is not Vietnam, it's the Middle East, it's Islamic insurgents that will come back and destroy us.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, 9/11 proved that they can come here and they can attack us. We must continue the course, not just for the sake of the soldiers that have given their time, their talents and their lives to protect our freedom, but for ourselves and our children.
We are the best nation in the world, and it is incumbent upon us at all levels, whether we are soldiers, whether we are in Congress, or whether we are the press, to protect our freedom.
I'm doing it. The soldiers are doing it. I hope my Democratic colleagues will do it. And I hope you will, too.
Thank you.
END
|
The hypocrisy and hollowness of these "representatives" knows no bounds.
Dreier is trotted out, on cue, draped in the mantle of his credentials as "the son of a Marine Drill Sargent". And....the MSM capitol press corp is running a close second......
Quote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...7/ai_n14695329
Independent, The (London) > Jun 27, 2005 >
David Dreier, the Republican congressman expected to mentor Tony Blair's eldest son Euan during a summer internship in Washington, is a hypocritical homosexual with an anti-gay voting record, critics allege.
During the election campaign last November, his Democrat opponent in California, Cynthia Matthews, came out as gay and urged her West Coast conservative rival, who idolised Ronald Reagan, to do the same.
One prominent LA publication outed him as gay and denounced him as a hypocrite. Mr Dreier, who is not married, has consistently refused to comment on his sexuality.........
|
<center><center><img src="http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/dreier-reagan-us-house.jpg">
Quote:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/47/news-ireland.php
Closet Politics
What doomed Dreier’s rise to the top
by DOUG IRELAND
When House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced on September 28 that California Congressman David Dreier — the powerful chair of the House Rules Committee and buddy of Governor Schwarzenegger, whose transition team he headed — would be his nominee to replace the indicted Tom DeLay, that should have made it a done deal.
But by the time the House Republican Conference convened to formalize the election of a new majority leader on the afternoon of Hastert’s breakfast anointing of Dreier, there was an unexpected revolt by conservative Republicans. In a stunning challenge to the speaker, they insisted on dumping Dreier in favor of Christian right darling Roy Blunt of Missouri. Dreier, who had already been trumpeted by the national media as the next majority leader, all but disappeared from press coverage — and so did the real reasons for the unexpected refusal by Republican members of Congress to back him.
What really happened?
“A Different Kind of Republican” was the way the Washington Post Web site bannered the story after Hastert picked Dreier. Whoever wrote that headline had a muffled sense of humor because, although the Post’s story talked about how the slickly telegenic congressman from Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, while “reliably conservative... never comes off as extreme,” it failed to mention what truly set Dreier apart from most of his Republican colleagues — the fact that Dreier is a closeted homosexual who has slavishly followed the homophobic GOP party line.
Flashback: Last fall, I reported on the outing of Dreier in two L.A. Weekly articles, (<a href="http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php">September 24</a> and <a href="http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-ireland.php">October 1</a>). While the blogosphere quickly echoed the Weekly’s reports, the mainstream U.S. press — which has steadfastly refused to cover the outing campaign that has revealed a host of top Republicans as closeted homosexuals — ignored how Dreier’s closet door had been pried open. By contrast, the eminently respectable and serious British daily The Independent picked up on the outing this summer, when the lead of its June 27 story read, “David Dreier, the Republican congressman expected to mentor Tony Blair’s eldest son Euan during a summer internship in Washington, is a hypocritical homosexual with an anti-gay voting record, critics allege.” The Independent cited the L.A. Weekly’s coverage.
Fast-forward to the majority-leader revolt: Within minutes after Hastert’s selection of Dreier, Blogactive.com — the D.C.-based Web site that first outed Dreier — posted online and widely e-mailed an alert. “Call Dennis Hastert and thank him for standing up to the Radical Right by recommending a gay man as Majority Leader,” Blogactive’s Mike Rogers wryly wrote, giving Hastert’s phone number. Within hours, according to a low-ranking Hastert staffer who requested anonymity, the speaker’s office received more than 400 phone calls about Dreier’s being gay.
Many of those calls were from right-wingers. The Hill — the D.C. weekly covering Congress — later reported that “Republican aides across Capitol Hill said they were overwhelmed by phone calls from conservative activists” about Dreier. A lot of those calls, House staffers told me, were homophobic about Dreier’s being gay. Slate reported, “The House ‘Values Action Team,’ a group of GOP members tasked with pushing pro-life/pro-family issues within the caucus, blasted ane-mail to their colleagues alerting them that Dreier was to be tapped as a replacement and underlining his voting record supporting stem-cell research.” These conservative GOP congressmen didn’t need to tell their colleagues that Dreier is a closet case — it’s hardly a secret on Capitol Hill. When I was first reporting on Dreier’s outing, one well-known gay congressman told me, “Everybody in the House knows,” adding that he was “100 percent sure” that Dreier was gay.
The closest the mainstream media came to mentioning Dreier’s being gay was a story the Associated Press ran a few days after his dumping — just by coincidence, of course — on the outing of politicians. This October 4 <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9591678/">AP story</a> said, alluding to Dreier, “A cadre of activist bloggers and alternative-media journalists have been contending for more than a year that another Republican congressman is gay and yet has often voted against gay-rights legislation. Thus far, the mainstream media — both national outlets and those in the congressman’s home region — have declined to report on the campaign, although the effort is common knowledge among political reporters and on Capitol Hill.” Making the reference to Dreier unmistakable, the AP then quoted openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, who said that “the perception that the congressman might be gay had damaged his standing with some fellow Republicans in the House — and Frank said this issue of bias should be aired publicly. ‘I think he’s wrong to be silent about this,’ Frank said of the congressman. ‘You should not cover up this act of prejudice.’?”
But that, of course, is just what the mass media did — including all the dailies serving parts of Dreier’s district.
Dreier’s closet-case hypocrisy continues: Just two weeks before the majority-leader revolt dumped him, Dreier voted against including gays in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (this provision passed the House 233-199). Yet even this latest in Dreier’s long record of anti-gay votes wasn’t enough to save him from the wrath of the Christer right that dominates the House Republican caucus.
Was Dreier’s sexuality the only reason he was dumped? Of course not. One other factor, little mentioned in the press, is that there’s been a lot of grumbling by GOPers that Californians had too much power by holding a half-dozen important committee chairs, including Dreier at Rules and Rep. Bill Thomas at Ways and Means. And Dreier’s oh-so-rare deviations from the Christer agenda were anathema to those who wanted DeLay’s replacement to be as staunch a storm trooper as The Hammer on their puritanical, anti-science approach to social issues. But the fact that Dreier is, although closeted, a homosexual — something they consider a mortal sin — made him anathema to the Christer GOP majority in the House.
And it’s a damn shame the press didn’t feel the voters should know what everyone in Washington knows.
|
Last edited by host; 11-18-2005 at 09:09 AM..
|