Ah, the joys of twitter. I signed up a while ago out of curiosity, and while I was skeptical at first I've become a believer. One of the best parts of it is watching my Congressman from Texas' 26th district, Michael Burgess (@michaelcburgess), repeatedly jam his foot into his mouth. This time, though, he's crammed it in up to the hip.
Remember that DHS report about right wing extremist terrorists that has the Republicans hitting the feinting couch? Well, I've got some choice excerpts from his response letter under the fold.
He just jumps right in by proving his conservative bonafides, in this case by showing a distinct lack of reading comprehension:
I am writing to express my concerns regarding a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report entitled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." This report claims to provide law enforcement officials with the tools to help them deter, prevent, preempt, orrespond to terrorist attacks against the United States. I understand the purpose of shared intelligence, however, I am concerned that by broadly characterizing those who support a conservative ideology with terrorism the DHS may have mischaracterized and offended several million Americans and placed them at risk of profiling by law enforcement officials.
Now, how does Michael Burgess define these "several million americans" who might be offended? If he's championing the people described in the document, then lets use DHS's definition:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
So, according to Michael Burgess, conservatives are primarily hate-oriented, based on hatred of particular religious, racial, or ethinic groups. And he has appointed himself the champion of this poor, opressed minority.
I guess I can agree to stipulate that.
Lets move a few more inches up Dr. Burgess' leg, shall we?
The implication that veterans returning home from serving our country are at risk of becoming domestic terrorists or assassins is sensational at best and is dishonorable and disrespectful to their service.
So the question raised by this bit is, does Congressman Burgess simply not know who Tim McVeigh is despite the fact that that McVeigh is mentioned on page 8 of the document? But of course, Burgess knows exactly who Tim McVeigh is, and knows that he was in the military.
Lets see, from the wikipedia entry on McVeigh,
He was a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star. He had been a top-scoring gunner with the 25 mm cannon of the Bradley Fighting Vehicles used by the U.S. 1st Infantry Division to which he was assigned. He served at Fort Riley, Kansas, before Operation Desert Storm...McVeigh later would say that the Army taught him how to switch off his emotions.[5] He had special lifesaving training and may have saved the life of a comrade who had life-threatening shrapnel wounds
Not only a returning veteran, but a decorated war hero.
What does the DHS report say about veterans?
DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
Hardly a sensational claim, and in no way disrespectful to their service. This is merely a statement of fact from an agency that can't afford to tiptoe around the Republican feinting couch for the sake of political correctness.
I live in TX26, and Burgess has been my congressman for a long time. Even at the height of power for the Texas delegation under DeLay and Bush, Burgess was never more than a meat puppet dancing to the strings of the leadership, and now that most of those leaders have been sent to pasture in one way or another, he's like the rest of his party: floating without a rudder, free to be blown about by the outgassing of whatever news radio pundit happens to be shrieking the loudest that day.
Lets see how he finishes it off:
Profiling based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or life experiences is always wrong. I believe the Department of Homeland Security owes an apology to the Americans that are offended by this report, especially the men and women of our Armed Forces.
Really? You really think that DHS should apologize to people who "are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)?" After saying that profiling based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, or life experiences is ALWAYs wrong, you demand that DHS apologize to the people who do that as a fundamental tenet of their world view?
Yet another display of hypocrisy from Michael Burgess, and yet another day that the people in his district must fight back a burning sense of shame that they've allowed such a buffoon to represent them in the House of Representatives.
He closes out with this bit:
I urge you to enact these recommendations on behalf of the constituents of the 26th District of Texas.
That this man speaks with the borrowed credibility of me and my neighbors while championing the cause of right wing terror groups is sickening, and Congressman Burgess should apologize publicly to the people of his district for shooting his mouth off without taking the time to read and understand the report he was responding to.