Fat Jerry Nadler Accuses Jewish Press Of 'Distortion'

The Jewish Press ^ | 9-5-02 | Jason Maoz

[alan alda]

A Case Study In Distortion...Or Justified Criticism?

Taking Issue With Media Monitor

In a recent Media Monitor column("Dems Throw Stones From Glass Houses," May 31), Senior Editor Jason Maoz cited a handful of my votes on defense and intelligence over the last ten years to suggest that I have never much cared for supporting our nation`s military or intelligence agencies.

The column was a case study in how one can selectively pull certain votes to distort the voting record of a Member of Congress. Another writer could have just as easily made the case that I was an irresponsible "hawk" in Congress, because I voted fifteen times for military and spending bills.

For example, I voted for the FY 2002 Defense Appropriations bill, which provides $317 billion for our military this year and a pay raise for our soldiers, precisely because I support our efforts to combat terrorism and to make our nation more secure. In fact, I voted to provide $1.7 billion of that amount specifically to counter-terrorism activities.

That is not to say that I have not sometimes been critical of our defense policy. I opposed the Defense Authorization Act of 2001, for example, because it threw huge amounts of money into projects designed to fight a land war in Europe against a no-longer existing Soviet Union, while underfunding areas of real menace. In January 2001 -- nine months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon -- I said:

"Many people claim the world is still a dangerous place, and it is. But the new threats to peace aren`t likely to be the cold war threats of nuclear war or global combat. Instead it is much more likely to be terrorism, information warfare...New F-22 fighter planes can`t solve any of these problems."

I have voted for the military and intelligence spending bills that I thought made sense, and I have voted against bills that were filled with pork barrel projects that prop up unnecessary bases and unneeded weapons, useful for a war in Europe against a no longer existing Soviet Union, while actually diverting funds from programs that aid our troops and confront real, current menaces. Every secretary of Defense has called for reforms to these budgets, but most members of Congress have ignored their sound advice. Bloated spending on a military force structure that fails to defend against the real threats is not a strong defense. On Sept. 11, we paid the price for not having enough foresight in Congress to reform the military budget to defend against real threats.

Mr. Maoz cited my vote for a reduction to an intelligence authorization bill several years ago. I have been unimpressed by the performance of our intelligence agencies in recent years, and have believed that real reform was needed in how they handle their responsibilities. And just before the vote cited by Mr. Maoz, the National Security Agency had "lost" $4 billion it could not account for. My vote was part of a campaign to shake up our intelligence agencies, which have failed to prevent, or communicate effectively with leaders who could prevent, the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred on our soil. Oddly enough, it`s a view that the Bush administration has come to support since Sept. 11.

Mr. Maoz said I voted against "legislation calling for expanded power for law enforcement officials investigating suspected terrorists." What he failed to say is that I voted for legislation doing precisely that, when, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I joined such conservative Republicans as Henry Hyde and Robert Barr in a unanimous (36-0) vote to approve a strong anti-terrorism bill and send it to the House floor for final approval. That bill gave law enforcement additional tools requested by the Bush administration, but also struck a reasonable balance in not unduly invading the civil liberties of American citizens.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the House simply discarded the carefully developed bill approved by the Judiciary Committee and wrote an entirely different bill in secret. They then brought the new 200 page bill to a vote on the House floor less than three hours after it was first printed. Nobody had a chance even to read, let alone understand, the bill before the vote. I am proud that I refused to be railroaded into voting for a bill dealing with our freedom without any opportunity to understand the bill or its effects.

Now, after passage of this bill without proper consideration, many real problems with it have emerged. For example, the bill enables the police to search your home without ever telling you, even after the fact. It enables people to be arrested and held indefinitely -- without any evidence of a crime. This is un-American and, I believe, unconstitutional. And it provides new powers for the government to read your e-mail -- and not just for terrorism investigations. It is not a properly balanced bill.

Finally, Mr. Maoz said that on May 7 I did not vote on a bill to improve border security that passed unanimously, the implication being that I just didn`t care. Actually, I supported the bill, but, unfortunately, the vote on it actually came up on May 8 -- on which date I had to fly back to New York to announce an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up the thousands of apartments in lower Manhattan contaminated by hazardous materials released during the collapse of the World Trade Center.

That agreement I brokered may potentially protect the health -- and save the lives -- of thousands of New Yorkers. To me, protecting the lives of my constituents seemed more important than casting a "yes" vote on a bill that was going to pass unanimously anyway.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

Jason Maoz Responds:

Congressman Nadler`s accusation that I "selectively" cited several votes in order to "distort" his record is as ludicrous as his claim that "another writer could have just as easily" characterized him as "an irresponsible ‘hawk` in Congress."

Mr. Nadler informs us that he "voted fifteen times for military and spending bills." A vague statement to be sure, but one can reasonably assume that Mr. Nadler is referring to his career voting record in Congress. Mr. Nadler has been a member of the House of Representatives since January 1993. That`s nine and a half years, a period during which Congress has voted on more than a hundred pieces of defense and intelligence-related legislation. The fact that he can point to no more than fifteen "yes" votes speaks volumes.

Granted, bills in Congress can be complicated matters, and specific votes are not always a true barometer of a member`s ideological inclinations. Yet there are plenty of serious Congressional critics of particular defense measures or provisions who manage to make their concerns felt without gaining national reputations as visceral opponents of increases in military and intelligence spending.

Not so those House members who along with Mr. Nadler constitute the so-called "Congressional Progressive Caucus," a group of 56 or so far-left Democratic representatives who reflect a drearily predictable anti-defense, anti-intelligence pattern in their voting (even if there are certain exceptions that prove the rule, such as the 2002 Defense Appropriations bill alluded to by Mr. Nadler).

For those unfamiliar with the Progressive Caucus, some of its more prominent members, in addition to Mr. Nadler, are Cynthia McKinney of Georgia; Maxine Waters and Fortney "Pete" Stark of California; Nydia Velazquez, Jose Serrano and Charles Rangel of New York; Earl Hilliard of Alabama (recently defeated in a Democratic primary there); Jesse Jackson Jr. and (former Black Panther) Bobby Rush of Illinois; John Conyers and David Bonior of Michigan; Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania; Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas; and Donald Payne of New Jersey. Not exactly a group known for its strong stance on national defense -- nor, with the exception of Mr. Nadler and a handful of others, even a tepid stance on behalf of Israel.

It is instructive that Mr. Nadler declines to address a quote of his that I cited in my column:

"The fact is that with the Soviet Union gone, and with the cold war over, if we cannot reduce our intelligence budget by 10 or 20 percent, then we are wasting a heck of a lot of money."

As I noted in the column, this comment of Mr. Nadler`s came just months after the first World Trade Center bombing, in the course of a debate on an amendment to the 1995 Defense Authorization Bill which would have made deep cuts in the intelligence budget. The amendment was overwhelmingly defeated, but was supported by Mr. Nadler.

There is no indication from Mr. Nadler`s remarks during that debate that his eagerness to make significant cuts in the intelligence budget stemmed from his having been "unimpressed by the performance of our intelligence agencies" or from a conviction "that real reform was needed," as he now claims in his letter to The Jewish Press, or, in fact, from any specific problem at all. Nor does he address the question of exactly how such cuts, if implemented, would have improved or reformed the nation`s intelligence-gathering apparatus.

As for Mr. Nadler`s explanation for voting against the Oct. 2001 legislation calling for expanded powers for law enforcement agencies, he certainly was not alone in worrying about possible abuses; many conservatives and civil libertarians voiced some of the same concerns. But the fact is that in the end most House members concluded that a time of extraordinary crisis called for extraordinary measures. The bill passed easily, 357-66. (Should it come as a surprise that 42 of the 66 "no" votes came from members of the Progressive Caucus?)

Supporting that bill, by the way, were dozens of Democratic representatives with unimpeachable liberal credentials, including Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman of California; Robert Wexler and Peter Deutsch of Florida; Sander Levin of Michigan; Gary Ackerman and Anthony Weiner of New York; and Marty Meehan of Massachusetts.

Mr. Nadler`s final point is most revealing about how he views his responsibilities. He counters what I said about his missing a vote on a border security bill with the following statement:

"I had to fly back to New York to announce an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up the thousands of apartments in lower Manhattan contaminated by hazardous materials released during the collapse of the World Trade Center. That agreement I brokered may potentially protect the health -- and save the lives -- of thousands of New Yorkers. To me, protecting the lives of my constituents seemed more important than casting a ‘yes` vote on a bill that was going to pass unanimously anyway."

Had Mr. Nadler simply said his vote was not needed, fine. But he said more than that. Taking him at his word that he "brokered" an environmental deal, one still has to wonder why he considers his presence in New York "to announce an agreement" (a photo-op by any other name) tantamount to "protecting the lives" of his constituents. (And it should not go unremarked that even on those occasions when Congress passes legislation by ridiculously lopsided margins, most members take pains to show up and vote anyway, for the sake of symbolism if nothing else.)

Mr. Nadler can spin scenarios about why he voted for or against this or that bill because of this or that provision, but the fact remains that reputations as ideologically fixed as Mr. Nadler`s are hard to come by in Congress. His colleagues know him. Journalists know him. And he knows exactly what I meant. I stand by my column.

[NativeNewYorker]

From right to left, Jabba the Hutt, Incitatus, and Daedre Levine, a "fundraising consultant".

[NativeNewYorker]

Denis Hawkins, Eda Malenky, Carolyn Hall with Congressman Jerry Nadler and Hilary Rodham Clinton.

[NativeNewYorker]

[evolved_rage]

Pigs and pigs-at-the-public-trough???

[capt. norm]

Only Jupiter has more orbiting moons (12) than Nadler.