Rubber Stamp Roskam » Terrorism

Will Peter Roskam Support Libyan Jihad on Switzerland?

RSR — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:07:16 +0000

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has made the news in the past few days with his call for a Jihad on the nation of Switzerland. Gaddafi’s call was in response to a recent approval by Swiss voters of a ban on the erection of minarets.

Gaddafi, who’s full title is Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, said the following:

“Let us wage jihad against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression,”

“Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against Muhammad, God and the Koran.”

Now we believe that the Swiss minaret ban is misguided and an affront to religious liberty. But we deplore the unhinged Gaddafi’s call for holy war.

We are a little curious, however, what our Republican Congressman, Peter Roskam, thinks about Gaddafi’s actions.Voters in the 6th District may not realize that Peter Roskam is personally acquainted with Gaddafi. Roskam traveled to Libya in 2008 as part of a Congressional delegation led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan. Listen to Peter Roskam talk about his meeting with Gaddafi on WLS AM’s Don Wade & Roma show on April 2, 2008:

Peter Roskam on Don Wade and Roma, April 2, 2008

The same day, Roskam wen ot WIND’s Big John & Cisco Show to talk about Gaddafi and Libya again:

Peter Roskam on WIND Big John &Cisco April 2, 2008

So why did Roskam go off to Libya and meet with Gaddafi and then come back and begin a tentative rehabilitation of the terrorist leader in these radio appearances?

Well, there’s the oil. They don’t call the GOP the “Gas & Oil Party” for nothing. Libya sits on huge reserves of oil and natural gas and there’s no doubt that the GOP’s clientele in the oil industry want a piece of that action.

And then there’s the campaign contributions. Yes, Gaaddafi’s Libya is a contributor to Roskam’s reelection campaign, albeit inirectly. Records made available by Congress and made accessible in the Sunlight Foundation’s Foreign Lobbying Influence Tracker show that Roskam & his staff had numerous contacts in 2008 with members of the Livingston Group, a lobbying form acting on behalf of the government of Libya, and that that firm, acting on behalf of it’s client, wrote at least 3 checks to Roskam’s re-election campaign. The livingston Group was seeking a normalization of U.S. trade relations with Libya, something that Roskam talks about as being desireable in his radio appearances. The data made available by Sunlight ends with 2008 so we have no knowledge of any ongoing relationship between Roskam and agents of the Libyan government.

Gaddafi in Libya. Uribe in Colombia. Micheletti in Honduras. Roskam sure does seem to have a thing for the world’s thugs and strongmen. We find it not a little disquieting.

Ronald Reagan, Terrorist

RSR — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:12:18 +0000

Today is Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday. We thought it might be a good thing to take a look the real Ronald Reagan, rather than the pantomime Reagan always being trotted out by conservatives. Here then is Bill Moyers excellent 1987 film on Reagan’s illegal terrorist war against the people of Nicaragua. Reagan funded his war by secret illicit arms sales to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, all, absurdly, in the name of fighting Communism. In doing so he violated the law and acted in direct opposition to the will of Congress, subverting the constitution and creating a shadow government. And he is held up as a hero by so-called conservatives for it. We think that conservatives have a little difficulty distinguishing right from wrong & the good guys from the bad guys.

After you’ve had a chance to view the video, you may want to follow-up by reading about the connection between Reagan’s Contras and the crack cocaine crisis in the United States in the early 1980s.

No related posts.

Peter Roskam’s Fear About Guantanamo Transfer is Misplaced

RSR — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:14:52 +0000

As the administration announced this week its intention to acquire the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois in order to house prisoners to be transferred from the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Peter Roskam continued his efforts to sow fear about the planned transfer. Roskam issued a brief statement on Tuesday:

“The decision to move some of the world’s worst terrorists to Illinois is an ill-advised move that ultimately will be regretted. The proponents have failed to prove how this move will make America safer. Let’s be clear: the Administration is not closing Guantanamo, they are simply moving Guantanamo to Illinois. Illinois deserves a better Christmas present than hardened terrorists. ”

He later held a press conference with the rest of the Illinois Republican delegation to object to the proposed transfer.

Roskam’s arguments against the move have been unsubstantial. He does not define how the housing of these inmates in a supermax facility will pose a threat. His stance appears to be political posturing rather than a serious concern about a security threat. It is sad that he would block the move for political gain at the expense of the people of Thomson, who favor the move and desperately need the jobs the prison will provide.

Senator Dick Durbin and Governor Quinn offered a saner perspective on Thomson yesterday:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is reason to be disconcerted about the transfer of Guantanamo inmates to Thomson, though not for reason of a security threat as Roskam would have us believe.

No, the problem is that the Guantanamo closure, while perhaps a symbolic measure of some importance, leaves unresolved the issues associated with the use of military tribunals and of indefinite detention of prisoners without criminal charges or trial. The President and Congress must still act to correct the abuses that they inherited from the Bush Administration. They cannot simply sweep them under the carpet. That is what we should really be afraid of. The American Civil Liberties Union had the following reaction to the news about Thomson:

“Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor’s policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it’s occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one’s accusers.

“It is also greatly disturbing that the administration will continue the use of military commissions, which are no more acceptable in Illinois or any other U.S. state than in Guantánamo. Despite some improvements, the commissions still fall far short of the legal standards necessary to comply with constitutional and international standards, allowing, for example, the use of coerced and hearsay evidence that would not be allowed in federal court. The proceedings will achieve neither reliable justice nor a restoration of America’s credibility around the world.”

“The administration must also make very clear what category of detainee will be transferred to Thomson in the future and what kind of prison conditions will apply. Detainees not charged with a crime should not be subject to punitive conditions meant for sentenced prisoners who have been found guilty in a court of law, and all conditions must comply with the Geneva Conventions. “The administration will no doubt be looking to Congress for legislative buy-in for this facility, and as both branches work together, we strongly urge lawmakers to legislate responsibly and not set any policies or precedents for indefinite detention on U.S. soil, or create any violation of the Geneva Conventions.

“The Obama administration’s announcement today contradicts everything the president has said about the need for America to return to leading with its values. American values do not contemplate disregarding our Constitution and skirting the criminal justice system. After detaining hundreds of individuals without the basic due process rights that define our justice system for almost eight years, it is time to charge suspects where evidence exists and repatriate and transfer the rest to countries where they won’t be tortured.”

Challenger Ben Lowe Rejects Peter Roskam’s Gitmo Hysteria

RSR — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:09:14 +0000

In recent days, the 6th District’s Republican Congressman, Peter Roskam, has been doing his best to stimulate public hysteria over the proposed transfer of prisoners currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to Illinois’ maximum-security Thomson Correctional Center. Those efforts have largely failed, with both major Chicago newspapers and most reality-based leaders denouncing Roskam’s fearmongering and supporting consideration of the plan. The public seems to have been largely unaffected by Roskam’s campaign.

Now Roskam is whining because U.S. Senate candidate and Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias reports having been briefed on the possible transfer by staff from the National Security Counsil (NSC):

“Given Mr. Giannoulias’ disclosure that he received a NSC briefing on possibly moving Guantanamo to Illinois, I urge the Obama Administration to eschew the increasingly political nature of this situation. Moving terrorists to Illinois will have tremendous security and economic implications, and now this situation has been tainted by the appearance of political favoritism given that a Democrat U.S. Senate candidate received a NSC briefing while elected Members of Congress have not. The people of Illinois will be best served by a process that forgoes the behind-closed-doors political approach and instead provides foropen and transparent consideration.”

Ha! We’re wondering when Peter Roskam is going to “eschew the increasingly political nature of this situation.” We suspect that Mr. Giannoulias received a briefing because he requested it and that Roskam, as a member of Congress, could have requested the same at any time. Instead, political opportunist that he is, Roskam smelled blood in the water when he heard about the propoosal and immediately launched into an attack against the administration without troubling himself to learn the facts. This, of course, is Roskam’s modus operandi.

Meanwhile, Roskam’s eminently sensible opponent, Democrat Ben Lowe of Wheaton, has released what I think is a terrific statement on the proposed transfer and the need we have as a nation to return to respect for our constitution and legal heritage:

Understandably, after 9/11, our nation developed a heightened fear of those who seek to commit acts of terror against our country. But somewhere during the Bush era, we also lost confidence in the ability of our judicial system to administer justice to those suspected of committing or supporting terrorism.

Instead of trusting that the foundational elements of our democracy are capable of withstanding this great challenge, we began to exchange many of our civil rights (including the writ of habeas corpus) for a greater sense of security. We stopped trusting our courts, our prisons, and the principles of due process and representation under the law, which are so vital to our democracy.

We can do better.

We can do better. We can replace Peter Roskam with a serious leader focused on problem-solving and not political theater. I think Ben Lowe is that kind of leader. Readers who long for things to change may want to wander over to Ben’s website and drop him a few bucks to help get his campaign up and running.

Peter Roskam’s Scare-athon Continues… All Fear, All the Time

RSR — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:31:06 +0000

My brother used to have a dog, a big mutt, who’d lived only to fetch a green tennis ball. All day long that dog would carry the ball around and beg you to throw it for him. And he’d bring it back and want you to throw it again…and again…and again…all day long. The dog didn’t want to do anything else. And because he had that ball in his mouth all day, it got all wet and slobbery…pretty gross…and you didn’t really want to touch it, but the dog would insist. That was his only trick. I think the dog was kind of dim.

That dog reminds me of Peter Roskam. Peter was at it again today…his one trick…trying to scare the hell out of his constituents, and it is getting pretty old. Roskam proudly tweeted earlier today that his followers should watch him on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting where he had spoken about “Al-Quaeda possibly coming to Illinois”. Turns out he was on with Rep Bruce Braley, a Democrat from Iowa’s 1st District, which is right across the Misssissippi from Thomson, Illinois, home of the prison that is being considered to house inmates presently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Here’s the video:

Roskam spouted the same tired old talking points, trying to scare you. Braley, on the other hand, demonstrated what we would expect from a Congresman: he had been out to the site and inspected it, had been briefed by federal officials, had talked it over with citizens. Why can’t we have a real Representative like Braley, firmly rooted in reality?

Braley wasn’t the only one to call Roskam on his scare tactics. Just yesterday BOTH major Chicago newspapers criticized the antics of Roskam, Mark Kirk, and the other Republican fearmongers.

Here’s what the Tribune had to say:

…when Republicans heard that the Obama administration is looking at buying the largely vacant Thomson Correctional Facility to house some detainees now held at Guantanamo (as well as ordinary maximum security prisoners), they reacted as though Osama bin Laden had been given the keys to a missile silo…

…Give us a break. A super-maximum security prison, such as Thomson would become, is not what most of us associate with the word “neighborhood.” The critics seem to forget that no one has ever escaped from a supermax. If having a terrorist imprisoned on our soil were an invitation for his confederates to slaughter innocent Chicagoans, it would surely have happened already…

…We don’t think the residents of Illinois will buy into the panic the opponents are trying to stoke. And while the change would surely bring economic benefits and jobs to a depressed corner of the state, the best reason for using Thomson for these inmates is that Guantanamo needs to be closed and they have to be locked up securely somewhere…

…It’s a vital responsibility that Illinois citizens are not likely to shirk.

And the Sun-Times:

America’s federal prisons are full of people who scare the hell out of us — mob hit men, mass murderers and international terrorists. We arrest and charge such fiends, give them a fair trial and, if they are found guilty, lock them up. We do not quake in fear. We do not shelve our values. We do not cheap out on due process — a fair day in court for even the worst human beings, homegrown or foreign.

…Kirk’s scare talk might do him wonders with the GOP base, but it won’t convince a single terrorist that this nation has a backbone.

Nor will it create a single job in northwest Illinois…

…Federal prisons are skilled in dealing with high-risk inmates (the mobster Frank Calabrese Sr. comes to mind) who try to plot from behind bars. They are subjected to special administrative measures, which typically include solitary confinement, drastic restrictions on visitors and a close eye on all communications.

In the case of the Guantanamo detainees at Thomson, they will be isolated from other prisoners and supervised by the Department of Defense. Under DOD rules, they will be allowed visits only from lawyers.

Guantanamo, where American values go to die, is nothing more than a worldwide recruitment tool for terrorists.

Even Republican stalwarts Grover Norquist, Bob Barr, and and David Keene are critical of Roskam and Kirk’s scare tactics:

The scaremongering about these issues should stop. Using a state of the art but little used prison facility like the one at Thomson, Illinois – with any appropriate security upgrades our law enforcement professionals deem necessary – makes good sense for the tax payers who invested $145 million in the facility and who are seeing millions wasted every month at the costly, inefficient Guantanamo facility. It makes sense for the community which will benefit from the related employment and has absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities. But most of all it makes sense for America because it is a critical link in the process of closing Guantanamo and getting this country back to using its tried and true, constitutionally sound institutions.

So I wish Peter Roskam would just shut up about Guantanamo and Thomson. His rhetoric is becoming about as attractive as that dog’s slobbery green tennis ball.

*************************************************

On to health care reform. Peter Roskam emitted another tweet this afternoon pointing to an article he wrote for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government. (Guess the Tribune and the Sun-Times weren’t taking his calls.) The piece is titled: “Pelosi’s Healthcare Vision: Government Mandate or Jail”. It seems to be aimed directly at the Teabaggers, the only ones, I think who still take Roskam seriously.

Roskam starts out:

“Failing to purchase “acceptable health insurance coverage” could result in a fine punishable “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” Those are direct quotes from a letter of analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a non-partisan analysis committee in Congress. While that policy may not be one of Nancy Pelosi’s main talking points about her healthcare takeover legislation, it is an undoubtedly destructive portion of her healthcare bill, part of the reason it passed with only two votes to spare.”

There’s a picture of a scary prison corridor inserted after that paragraph.

Yes, more b.s. on the individual mandate. Yes, the House bill requires most Americans to purchase health insurance, with government subsidy if their income is such that they can’t afford it on their own. And yes, there is a tax that is applied only to those who opt out. The rationale for the mandate and the tax is to try to insure that everyone is covered, because when people who can afford insurance don’t buy insurance, we all end up paying for their care when they get into trouble. In effect, we are all already taxed for their irresponsibility.

When Peter Roskam refers to jail time, what he is really talking about is potential penalties that may apply to people who don’t pay their taxes. It the same as with any tax. If you refuse to pay your federal or state income taxes long enough, eventually you’ll go to jail.

Christopher Weaver, writing at Shot’s – NPR’s Health Blog today, did a good job of debunking Roskam on the mandate:

In any event, imprisonment of tax evaders is usually reserved for the most outrageous cases. The letter to Camp notes that the Internal Revenue Service usually pursues unpaid taxes through the civil process — meaning no jail time. In 2008, fewer than 500 people were incarcerated because of the penalties the Republicans are fretting about.

So again, Peter Roskam, is just stirring up needless fear in the minds of his most impressionable constituents. The rest of us are just growing weary and irritated.

On a brighter note:

Our future Congressman, Ben Lowe of Wheaton, today initiated a capability for online donations at his website. I hope everyone will visit and give him some help to get his campaign up and running.

Peter Roskam Peddles Fear Because He Doesn’t Have Anything Else to Offer

RSR — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:21:31 +0000

Future ex-Congressman Peter Roskam missed 3 critical postal facility renaming votes today in order to hold a news conference where he demonstrated the entirety of his limited repertoire: sowing fear among his constituents, bashing the Obama administration, and whipping his teabagger base up into a frenzy.

Roskam joined with the also soon-to-be retired Congressman and notable flip-flopper Mark Kirk (who was for closing Guantanamo before he was against it), Congresswoman Judy Biggert, and Congressman Don Manzullo to protest the administration’s proposal to bring prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to a largely unused facility in Thomson, Illinois.

Roskam asserts that that to bring these prisoners to Illinois would put the public at risk and “dissuade businesses from coming to the state”.

“The Obama administration’s utter inability to create jobs here does not somehow make sending some of the world’s worst terrorists to our backyard a good idea,”

And if we are to believe Mark Kirk (who actually voted for the Guantanamo closure before he fell in love with Sarah Palin), Osama Bin Laden himself is likely to take up residence in Skokie and Chicago’s most prominent landmarks immediately destroyed.

All of this is, of course, a big load of hooey. The transfer could produce 2,000-3,000 job in a state that badly needs jobs. And the state has for some time already housed terrorists in federal facilities without any of the problems that the “Frightening Four” predict.

Fred Kaplan at Slate does an excellent job of destroying Roskam and his crew’s phoney arguements: There Are Already 355 Terrorists in American Prisons.

It’s pretty sad that this is all the Congresman has to offer his constituency:

We can’t address climate change because the entire economy will collapse
We can’t provide decent healthcare to all Americans because it will bankrupt our children
We can’t do the right thing and close Guantanamo because Illinois will be destroyed by Jihadists

I’m pretty sick of Roskam’s scare tactics but fortunately, we can now choose hope instead of fear. Ben Lowe’s campaign to replace Roskam in Congress is off to a good start and Ben is offering the district real solutions when Roskam offers only fear.

Peter Roskam Votes Against Chemical and Water Security Act

RSR — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:15:47 +0000

More than 8 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the House on Friday, November 6th, the House passed by a vote of 230 to 193 the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868), a bill to to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works. The bill, if enacted, will enhance the safety of 100 million Americans who live in proximity to high-risk chemical plants. The legislation must now be considered in the Senate.

Despite the fact that, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are 53 such plants in Illinois that each put more than 10,000 people at risk, the 6th District’s Republican Congressman, Peter Roskam, voted against the bill.

Among the provisions of H.R. 2868 are the following:

Conditionally require the highest risk plants to use safer chemical processes where feasible and cost-effective and requires the remaining high risk plants to “assess” safer chemical processes;
Eliminate the current law’s exemption of thousands of chemical facilities, such as waste water and drinking water plants and port facilities;
Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provides protections for whistleblowers and limit background check abuses;
Preserve state’s authority to establish stronger security standards;
Provide funding for conversion of plants, including drinking water facilities and wastewater facilities, and
Allow citizen suits to enforce government implementation of the law.

The bill was endorsed by a coalition more than 50 environmental, labor and health groups including Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace.

That endorsement meant little to Peter Roskam, however, because the bill was opposed by his owners: the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber.

Republican opposition to this important security measure seems to have been based in its requirement that manufacturers take action rather than be allowed to proceed at their own pace. But according to Greenpeace, while more than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes since 9/11, eliminating poison gas risks to more than 30 million Americans. Yet 300 other chemical plants together put 110 million Americans at risk.

The Republicans are also opposed to the provision for citizen lawsuits. This is just another part of their project to end democracy in favor of corporate rule. The tort reform that Peter Roskam is always peddling and the tightening of consumer bankruptcy regulations are other key elements. That is the Republican plan in a nutshell: deregulation for big corporations and take away the rights of consumers to fight them. We’ve already seen the horrible results of deregulation in the present economic crisis. I don’t want to be around when they take away our right to redress in the courts.

Peter Roskam Votes Against Key Measure to Defeat Al Quaeda & Taliban

RSR — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:29:18 +0000

On Thursday, June 11th, while I was vacationing in secessionist Texas, our Republican Congressman Peter Roskam voted against H.R. 1886: Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, choosing to play political games at the expense of national security and the fight against terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The bill, introduced by Democrat Howard Berman of California, provides increased military aid to Pakistan designed to improve its ability to conduct counter-terrorism efforts aimed at defeating Al Quaeda. It also increases economic aid with a focus on strengthening Pakistan’s democratic institutions and offering opportunities to its citizens to counteract recruiting efforts by extremist groups.

The measure provides for rigorous oversight and auditing (an anathema to Roskam and his Republican colleagues who generally disdain Congressional oversight and prefer a blank check approach – remember the pallets of cash being dumped in Iraq during the Bush years). This oversight allergy is probably related to Republicans’ longstanding coziness with defense contractors. The bill also requires that military aid be directed through the democratically elected government of Pakistan, that it be used for counter-terrorism purposes, and that Pakistan make demonstrable progress in counter-terrorism efforts as a condition to continuation.

H.R. 1886 also creates Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Goods produced in these areas could be exported duty-free to the United States. The idea is to promote work alternatives to hamper recruitment by the Taliban and Al Quaeda. A condition for producers to participate is their cooperation with a labor monitoring program to protect worker rights and maintain acceptable working conditions. This condition caused widespread fits amongst Roskam and his fellow anti-labor Republicans. God forbid we should do anything to protect workers. Why that’s Communism!

H.R. 1886 passed by a vote of 234-185. If I understand this correctly, the bill was incorporated as passed into H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which will now have to be reconciled with a Senate version that is lighter on oversight.

As President Obama Pursues Peace in Middle East, Peter Roskam Seeks Only to Fan Flames

RSR — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:08:35 +0000

Our suddenly fierce Congressman, Peter Roskam, today released a statement condemning President Obama for a suggestion that Iran might have a right to the peaceful development of nuclear power:

“President Obama’s recent comment in support of Iranian nuclear power is both shocking and reckless. Supporting Iran’s “legitimate [nuclear] aspirations” ignores all recent history and smacks of the same naive and misguided approach that allowed for North Korea to gain nuclear power – and now possess nuclear weapons. In a bow to our worst enemies, the President is showing a striking ability to imitate former President Jimmy Carter.

“In just recent memory, Iran has funded terrorist activities against U.S. troops and our allies, called for the destruction of both the U.S. and our strong ally Israel, and sought to systematically destabilize the Middle East and world. Does the President believe Iran wants nuclear power to do their part in combating climate change? Iran has made it abundantly clear what sinister plans they have with nuclear power – and both the U.S. and our allies have great reason to worry.

“There are few scenarios worse than Iran gaining nuclear power – and subsequently nuclear weapons – to threaten and potentially attack the U.S. and our closest allies. The President should immediately recant his support for Iranian nuclear power and consider better options to protect our nation, not endanger it.”

Before tackling Roskam’s statement, lets take a moment to refresh our memories as to how we got ourselves into our present position relative to Iran. President Bush and Vice President Cheney assumed office in 2001 determined to invade Iraq for the benefit of U.S. oil interests. So distracted were they by that project that they were unable to attend to warnings of an imminent terrorist attack on the United States. Because of that failure to focus on the real threat, the United States suffered the worst terrorist attack in our history on September 11, 2001, at the hand of Jihadists based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Reluctant to take on the terrorist where they were situated, members of the administration lobbied to invade Iraq instead because it would be easier. But wiser heads prevailed and the invasion of Afghanistan was initiated in late Autumn 2001.

But the administration was still obsessed with Iraq and its oil reserves and consequently began to fabricate evidence to suggest that Iraq posed a threat with its nuclear/chemical/biological weapons programs that no longer existed, having been dismantled after the Gulf War. We have learned recently that the administration went so far as to use torture, at Cheney’s insistence, to try and induce detainees from Afghanistan to give false confessions of a link to Iraq. They proceeded to lie to the American public and to the world to justify the invasion of Iraq, which they launched in 2003, and which they told us would be a cake walk. Not so much a cake walk, however, that they didn’t have to redeploy resources from our operations in Afghanistan, where the terrorists were. Things predictably began to go badly in Afghanistan. But, on the brighter side, Saddam Hussein was captured and executed (although Bin Laden remained free) and a bloody civil war was provoked in Iraq, further distracting us from the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So once President Bush had done Iran the favor of eliminating its only threat in the region, Iraq, what did he do? He began to threaten and posture against Iran, leading us to believe he was mad, and Iran to believe that an invasion was imminent. So it seems pretty natural that they would want to ramp up their nuclear weapons program as a deterrent to U.S. agression.

Meanwhile, President Bush continued his efforts to destabilize the region by totally ignoring the plight of occupied Palestine and maintaining a totally one-sided policy regarding Israel, failing to call our ally on its misdeeds. Neither did Bush in any way challenge our other good ally, Pakistan, home of nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan who helped Iran get their nuclear program going, most probably with the complicity of the Pakistani state.

Through his lies and his arrogance Bush diminished the moral standing of the United States on the world stage. And by squandering resources in Iraq Bush piled up massive debt and limited our military’s ability to deal with real threats elsewhere. Both severely limited our country’s ability to cope effectively with whatever threat may be posed by Iran.

And you, Peter Roskam, our pissant chickenhawk neocon Congressman, you did not so much as emit a solitary squeak of protest at any of this, and therefore you are complicit in all, and not entitled to judge President Obama as he tries to find his way out of the mess that you left him.

As far as Obama’s statement is concerned, it was not anything like Roskam characterized it. Speaking to a BBC interviewer recently, the President said:

“Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region”

Earlier, in Prague, he had stated that his administration would “support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections” if Iran proves it is no longer a nuclear threat.

Obama further stated his intention to pursue escalated action against Iran if it fails to enter into good faith negotiations with the U.S. over its nuclear program.

Obama is doing a good job in handling the multiple crises that the Republican administration left him. He has been firm without being aggressive, and he has attempted to open dialouge rather than resort to the bullying and name-calling of his predecessors. I appreciate that he has had the courage to confront our friend and ally Israel on the issue of settlements. This is a very strong and capable President.

Roskam’s statement is pure political posturing. He and his Republican colleagues don’t have a positive idea between them. They are just desperately seeking to swift boat Obama in a futile attempt to diminish his popularity and instill groundless fear amongst their constituents. They couldn’t care less about what is the best course for our nation. Theirs is not honest dissent. They present only complaints and no solutions.

I find Roskam’s use of Jimmy Carter’s name to smear Obama particularly loathsome. Jimmy Carter is a good and decent person, though perhaps he wasn’t our most politically astute President. If we’d all listened to Jimmy Carter 30 years ago we’d be in a much better position with regard to energy. Like Obama, Carter was left a mess in regard to Iran by his Republican predecessors who propped up the brutal Shah, provoking the revolution and the hostage crisis. Still Carter was able to free the hostages while Reagan claimed the credit. It was Roskam’s sainted Reagan who actually turned around and sold arms to Iran to finance his campaign of terror in Central America.

My advice to Roskam is that he stick to his principal project of lowering taxes for the wealthy and returning American workers to the 19th century. He should leave the chickenhawk stuff to his good buddy Dick Cheney.

Peter Roskam Wants to Scare You Stupid

RSR — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:10:40 +0000

Can you imagine some of the world’s worst terrorists being held here in America, in Illinois, in the 6th district? What if one escaped? It’s no secret that drug gang lords can effectively operate their organizations from prison, communicating with the outside world with ease. In fact, prison has become a training ground for violent drug gangs. Do we want to grant Al Qaeda terrorists the same favor? And what kind of terror might come from a cross-pollination of Al Qaeda and drug gangs?

That’s a quote from an editorial posted on Peter Roskam’s House web site. The piece is entitled “Pelosi is Playing Politics with our National Security”. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.

Roskam’s stance is first and foremost part of his general strategy of making things difficult for President Obama in every possible way. He is a vigorous participant in the Republican politics of “No”. He has no qualms about sabtoaging our national effort to recover from the miserable Bush years for political gain. He has demonstrated repeatedly in his brief career that he will do or say pretty much anything to win. You will recall how in the last election he attempted to tie himself to Obama’s coat tails in a successful attempt to regain his seat. He never had any intention of supporting the Obama agenda but he wanted you to think so.

But beyond politics, Roskam seems to be a true believer in torture, in rendition to torture, in endless detention without trial or the ability to know the evidence against you, in the ability of the state to eavesdrop on its citizens without warrant, in the power of the President to do whatever he wants with accountability to no one. I infer this from the fact that he never opened his mouth in protest through the worst of the Bush abuses of power. Not once. Roskam always gave his willing “rubber stamp” of approval.

Now President Obama would like to restore the rule of law. But Roskam and his Republican cronies want to make it difficult, if not impossible, for him to do so. They plan to do this by scaring you, and, so far, they seem to be meeting with some success. The Democratic leadership in Congress appears to be falling into their trap.

Don’t let Roskam and his kind scare you stupid. We have the ability to securely detain dangerous criminals securely within our boundaries. We have the ability to segregate terrorists from the general prison population. We even have a town in Montana that would like nothing more than to help resolve the problem of detention. But that’s putting the cart before the horse. Our legal tradition of over 200 years demands that before we brand someone as a criminal (or a terrorist) that there be a fair trial. Roskam would like to trash that tradition. Don’t let him do it.

Call Peter Roskam and let him know that you are not scared and that the rule of law must prevail. You can reach him at (202) 225-4561 in Washington or at (630) 893-9670 in Bloomingdale.

No related posts.

Roskam Turns Blind Eye to Colombian Anti-Union Violence

RSR — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:06:45 +0000

Illinois labor leaders and union workers should take a long, hard look at Peter Roskam.

At the behest of the Bush Administration, Roskam recently traveled to Colombia and came back singing the praises of President Alvaro Uribe and his Colombian “success story”. Roskam has chosen to totally ignore the persistent violence that is occurring against union organizers, human rights activists, journalists and indigenous people by paramilitaries with ties to Uribe’s administration and to American and other foreign corporations. Bush is agressively pushing for a free trade agreement and Roskam is staying on message.

In promoting the free trade agreement for Bush, Roskam is wholeheartedly embracing the immoral Latin American policies of the two George Bushes, Henry Hyde, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and their predecessors going back many years, men who have embraced terrorism and brutal right wing regimes to advance the interests of American corporations at the expense of the lives of countless voiceless people.

Roskam looks at Columbia and doesn’t see the plight of its people. He sees only profits for American corporations, some of whom have been actively funding paramilitary violence.

Unionists in this country should be infuriated that Roskam cares so little about the oppression and murder of their brethren and they should understand that Roskam has no more support for their cause here. And if men like Roskam are allowed to continue turning the reigns of our own government over to corporate elites, the kinds of abuses that happen in Colombia can happen here as well.

BTW: If Roskam is interested in promoting trade, perhaps he should push for normalizing relations with Cuba. My sense is that the people of Cuba would actually benefit from such an opening and Americans could benefit as well.

Terrorists are OK… If They’re Our Terrorists

RSR — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:26:24 +0000

This weekend finds our Congressman, Peter Roskam, on a junket to Colombia. There he has been meeting with the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, in an effort to smooth the way for a free-trade agreement with Columbia by downplaying the persisent violence against trade unionists, human rights activists and journalists by rightwing para-military groups with connections to both the Uribe administration and the Colombian military. 40 union leaders were killed in the past year alone. And there has been violence directed also at poor people who pose inconveniences to projects by large multunational corporations, a trend that may increase if Roskam and his allies are able to push a free-trade agreement through.

Like his predecessor, Henry Hyde, Roskam has little problem with this kind of terrorism if it supports the rightwing government’s hold on power and thus U.S. corporate interests.

Roskam’s comment from Columbia on the situation there:

“This is a market of 44 million people,” he said. “There are great export opportunities. This is a country that buys a tremendous amount of agricultural equipment.” The best argument for approving the agreement, he said, is geo-political: “We have a lot at stake to see this place flourish and do well.”

So much for human rights.