Looks like Bonilla has some esplaining to do....
Campaign Distortions in Texas Runoff
Henry Bonilla tries to link his opponent to "Islamic radicals."
December 8, 2006
Modified: December 8, 2006
OUCH!Summary
The election still isn't settled in Texas' 23rd congressional district, where voters are being asked to go back to the polls on Dec. 12 to decide a runoff between Republican in bent Rep. Henry Bonilla and his Democratic opponent, former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. Bonilla's latest ad features a former FBI agent telling viewers that Rodriguez sponsored a "a new law to free suspected terrorists," was behind a meeting of "Islamic radicals" at the US Capitol, and "took contributions from those radicals." The ad features a photograph of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
We find this ad deceitful on several counts. The "new law" Rodriquez sponsored wasn't to "free terrorists." It was a bipartisan proposal to prevent the government from using classified intelligence information in certain immigration hearings. It was backed by the ACLU and some conservative Republicans alike, not just "Islamic radicals." The meeting in question wasn't "sponsored" by Rodriguez, though he may have reserved the room at the request of those who did sponsor it. And as for "contributions from those radicals," we found only a single donation of $250 that might fit that description.
Furthermore, there's also no evidence that Rodriguez knew the Blind Sheik or did anything on his behalf. The sheik would not have been freed by the legislation that Rodriguez co-sponsored, which would have applied only to immigration hearings and not to criminal trials. The ad is a misleading appeal to fear on the terrorism issue.
The Blind Sheikh
Why does the blind Egyptian Muslim cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman appear in this ad? Probably because he's a terrorist figure that most viewers will recognize, convicted of seditious conspiracy after an investigation that grew out of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Bonilla's surrogate in this ad, retired FBI agent Al Ortiz, connects Abdel-Rahman to Rodriguez in a roundabout and misleading way. He says, "In 2000 a summit was held in the US Capitol where Islamic radicals called for his [the cleric's] release and a new law to free suspected terrorists."
In fact, the meeting was a "Summit on Secret Evidence" in a House office building, the main thrust of which was to support a bill, HR 2010, to bar the use of secret evidence by the government in immigration hearings. It may be true that some attendees also called for the cleric's release. However, the group that
Bonilla "Ties"
The only support Bonilla's campaign gives for the claim that Rodriguez "sponsored" the meeting is testimony in 2000 by Steven Emerson, a terrorism expert who told the House Judiciary Committee that Rodriguez had reserved the room used for the gathering. Even if true, that shows nothing more than an effort to marshal support for the bill he was cosponsoring.Bonilla: I'm Henry Bonilla and I approve this message.
Ortiz: I'm Al Ortiz. For twenty-two years I tracked terrorists and criminals for the FBI. After the World Trade Center was first attacked by Sheik Abdel-Rahman he was convicted. In 2000 a summit was held in the U.S. Capitol where Islamic radicals called for his release and a new law to free suspected terrorists.
(On Screen: Image of Abdel-Rahman with words "Convicted Terrorist," "Free the Blind Sheik" and image of Capitol.)
Ortiz: All sponsored by Ciro Rodriguez, who took contributions from these radicals while pushing the law they wanted.
(On screen: Image of Rodriguez, words "Terrorist Law" and "Took Money")
Ortiz: I urge you, check the record. Judgment matters.
organized the meeting was the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, which traces its roots back to the McCarthy era, long before the rise of today's Islamic radicals.
Secret Evidence
The bill, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act, which Rodriguez co-sponsored as a member of the House in 1999, was of course not designed "to free suspected terrorists." The goal of the proposed legislation was to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow aliens in immigration hearings to see the evidence against them, even if that evidence is classified. It had support across a wide ideological spectrum: it was backed by the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and eventually gained 128 co-sponsors including Republican Reps. Bob Barr of Georgia and John Sununu of New Hampshire, both of them quite conservative.
Proponents of the bill argued at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in 2000 that secret evidence “in the form of classified information often consists of mere rumor and innuendo, inherently unverified and unverifiable.” Opponents of the legislation argued that the changes were too broad, limiting INS official’s ability to use confidential information to deny potential security threats entrance into the United States. The FBI told the committee that secret evidence was in fact rarely used,claiming that it was involved in only 11 out of 300,000 pending immigration cases.
The topic was a hot one in 2000, so much so that even Gov. George Bush took a stand in his presidential campaign -- against secret evidence. He raised it in his second debate with Vice President Al Gore that year, and in a written statement en led "Governor George W. Bush's Record of Inclusion" he said:
Bush: On the issue of secret evidence – another creation of the Clinton/Gore Justice Department – I am also troubled by the disturbing stories of how this policy is being implemented. More and more, new immigrants, often Arab or Muslim immigrants, face deportation or even imprisonment based on evidence they've never seen and never been able to dispute. That's not the American way.
Newsweek reported that after Bush took office, the Justice Department prepared a plan to restrict the use of secret evidence. It was supposed to be presented by Bush to a group of Muslim leaders at a meeting in the White House scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, a meeting that never took place. After 9/11 the notion of limiting government's ability to use classified evidence slipped right off the "to-do" list.
However, it is not the case, as the ad suggests, that criminals like Abdel-Rahman, who were convicted in federal court, would have been freed by this measure. The only "suspected terrorists" who might have been released would have been those against whom no criminal charges could be brought, only immigration proceedings in which classified evidence was crucial to having an individual deported. Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence in a Colorado prison.
Tainted Contributions?
Ortiz tells viewers that Rodriguez also "took contributions from these radicals while pushing the law they wanted." We did find a single contribution of $250 from Abdurahman Alamoudi, a naturalized U.S. citizen who was convicted for his role in facilitating the financing of a Libyan-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince. However, he was sentenced in 2004, and his contribution was given six years earlier in 1998. Alamoudi has also given money to former Rep. Bob Ney, the Ohio Republican caught up in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal; former Sen. Spencer Abraham, the Michigander who became Bush's energy secretary; and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bush himself, both of whom received their donations in 2000 and returned them later the same year.
The ad gets a couple of smaller points wrong as well: The summit meeting it refers to wasn't held in the Capitol, but in a House office building nearby, and the World Trade Center was not "attacked by Sheik Abdel-Rahman." The cleric was convicted as a result of an investigation of the 1993 bombing, but not for carrying it out.
Ortiz concludes by telling us, "I urge you, check the record. Judgment matters." Well, we did, and it's our judgment that this ad misrepresents the facts.
- by Viveca Novak, James Ficaro and Justin Bank
Sources
Source: factcheck
Jefferson, Greg and Joseph S. Stroud, "Bonilla hits Rodriguez on terrorism matters." San Antonio Express News, 5 December 2006.
Isikoff, Michael and Mark Hosenball, "Terror Watch: Friends in High Places." Newsweek, 12 May 2005.
Last edited by Nbadan; 12-11-2006 at 04:11 PM.
It's really a shame that Bonilla has decided to muck the mud in this race, polls had it within 3 points at one time, and Bonilla, hoping to run for Senator in the future, blinked. The really sad part is that Bonilla could have beat Ciro by focusing his campaign on his positives accomplishments in Congress for the State, and making promises to keep bringing home the bacon for Texas, but he chose the dark side instead.
Now, I want him to lose worse than ever.
Both of them are politicians. Ciro, for goodness sakes, has been in a depressed
state every since he was voted out of office. Defeated twice by Cuellar, now
he wants another district to take him, the loser, as their representative.
For some reason Bonilla, is worried about the San Antonio area. And maybe he should be. Ciro has a real machine in San Antonio and big base.
Anyhow, I think that is where all the play is in the campaign. Further out west
I think Bonilla will do okay and Ciro has more or less written it off.
U. S. Representative District 23 From the Bexar County Elections Dept:
Total San Antonio: (early voting)
U.S. Rep, Dist 23
Vote For 1
(WITH 0 OF 151 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
Ciro D. Rodriguez (DEM). . . . . . 11,846 56.31 0 11,846
Henry Bonilla (REP) . . . . . . . 9,191 43.69 0 9,191
Bexar County Elections Dept.
Total Bexar: (early voting)
Henry Bonilla 10,914 45.13%
Ciro D. Rodriguez 13,193 55.12%
13 of 267 Precincts 4.87%
Go Ciro Go!!
Last edited by Nbadan; 12-12-2006 at 08:41 PM.
Run Date:12/12/06 07:58 PM
Election Early
TOTAL VOTES % Day Vote
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 151). . . . . 25 16.56
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 37,072
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL . . . . . . . 24,778 3,691 21,087
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 66.84
U.S. Rep, Dist 23
Vote For 1
(WITH 25 OF 151 PRECINCTS COUNTED 16.56%)
Ciro D. Rodriguez (DEM). . . . . . 14,448 58.47 2,602 11,846
Henry Bonilla (REP) . . . . . . . 10,264 41.53 1,073 9,191
AP declares Rodriguez the winner.
astounding.
Wow. I'll sleep better tonight.astounding.
This is a tremendous set-back for Bonilla who had dreams of Senator or Governor...
Bonilla Loses House Seat After 7 Terms
Wednesday December 13, 2006 3:01 AM
AP Photo TXEG102, TXEG101
By ELIZABETH WHITE
Associated Press Writer
Guardian
SAN ANTONIO (AP) - Former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez defeated seven-term Republican Henry Bonilla in a runoff election Tuesday, adding another Democrat to Congress.
With more than half the precincts reporting in the state's largest district, Rodriguez
had 57 percent to Bonilla's 43 percent.
They were the top vote-getters in a special election held Nov. 7, but neither got 50
percent, prompting the runoff.
Bonilla was seeking an eighth term in Washington, while Rodriguez was hoping to return
after a two-year absence. He served from 1997-2005 in another district but was ousted in the March 2004 Democratic primary by Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat. Rodriguez lost again to Cuellar in this year's primary.
This just goes to show how stupid the average voter is. Ciro was, and is, a loser; and he was the biggest do nothing congressman in Washington. Yet, the people voted him back in! Well, all those who voted for him deserve whatever they get!
Bonilla is NO BETTER, and had every advantage, being the in bent. Guess the GOP loses their SINGLE poster boy Hispanic congressman.
Oh, and Crooky? Ciro isn't a loser for at least one night.
Or maybe the average voter got a little tired of Bonilla coming just short of calling Ciro a terrorist?
Frankly, I dislike both men as politicians/statesmen and personally as I've met and briefly talked with both, but I don't expect anything close to objective thoughts from you.
I like how Ciro had Johnny Canales at his Clinton Rally. If I was a registered voter, I would've voted for him just based on that.
Two extremely high quality, uplifting individuals produced by our wonderful, world-leading, democratic processes.
The sheeple get the gold, or the , they deserve.
Same can be said for those who kept re-electing Boneheadilla. I"m glad his ass is gone!!!
And the purge continues..
Oh, well. Clinton's bunch have another lap dog that they can make do
tricks when called upon. Ciro will be a good solider in the dimm-o-crap
party. Just like good ole Charlie.
Just like repugs follow Dubya like whipped puppies.
Henry had his so far up Dubya's ass he even sounded like Dubya.
Sorest
losers
ever.
We'll see how happy the voting public are in two years!
Ah, c'mon, be honest. It'd be hard to top Al Gore for that spot. Besides, I'm not seeing any Diebold, stolen election, suppressed voter conspiracies yet...even though the outcome surprised a few in this forum.
Eh, Bush would have done the same in 2000 had he been on the short end.Yet.Besides, I'm not seeing any Diebold, stolen election, suppressed voter conspiracies yet
Yet another unsupportable mischaracterization by Chumpy.
Well, even if it started today, it couldn't beat the pre-election whining done by Nbadan and others on this board -- not to mention the conspiracy sources they quoted in their whinings.
Say, speaking of which, what happened to the Diebold theft Dan?
You honestly think Bush would have just stepped aside if the roles had been reversed? You know nothing about politicians.Yet another unsupportable mischaracterization by Chumpy.The thing about that is, there's no way to tell if an election was stolen by rigging the electronic voting machines. If you are happy and perfectly satisfied with that, you are an even bigger fool than I knew you to be.Well, even if it started today, it couldn't beat the pre-election whining done by Nbadan and others on this board -- not to mention the conspiracy sources they quoted in their whinings.
Say, speaking of which, what happened to the Diebold theft Dan?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
