is how I'd describe Congressman Wolf, or maybe it's senilely worried.

Of course the Chinese are still Communists and dictators, of course they violate human rights, but Wolf, having supported Abu Ghraib and so on is not exactly in a position to be holier than thou (I am not comparing him to the Chinese leadership, however). He's entitled to his opinion, but we still have to deal with the Chinese, who are touchy and never forget an insult, and who will certainly revert to norm once the Olympics are over with and all those foreign devils have departed. Too bad Mr. Wolf does not show such vigor on other matters closer to home where some righteous indignation might be more effective.

I very rarely, ok never, support Mr. Wolf, but to a certain extent I do think he has a point with regards to the blatent basic human rights abuses of the Chinese. These Chinese dictators hate all religions and anyone opposed to communism and as a matter of fact beat and jail them.  

While there are many other reasons to oppose Congressman Wolf, I sort of admire what he is attempting to do with regards to keeping American tax dollars out of Communist hands.  

I think its important for whoever gets the nomination (probably Feder) to run against Mr. Wolf on energy, healthcare, and Iraq but his opposition to the Chinese will probably be very popular in his district. It just does not sound right to appear on the side of the Chinese communists but maybe I am just reading it wrong.  

These kinds of postures are classic Frank Wolf. I have no doubt that geniunely opposes human rights abuses, and it does take a certain kind of courage to stand up and speak out against the Olympics.

However, it's only rhetoric. Frank Wolf has done nothing to actually address human rights issues in China. He has done nothing to help advocate for trade rules that would remove incentives for labor abuse in China. He has done nothing about America's oil dependence, which pushes up the price of oil, flooding money to repressive regimes who then use that money to buy the silence of the many while they abuse the few.

Standing against human rights abuses is more than speaking out, it is removing the perverse incentives that reward regimes who abuse their citizens. And on that, Frank Wolf has been silent.

You know, Guantanamo.

Who's "on the side of the Chinese communists?"  I can't think of anyone.  The point here is Wolf's absurd, hyperbolic rhetoric that Americans who watch the Olympics are aiding and abetting genocide.  So, are you going to listen to Wolf or are you planning on watching the Olympics?

I don't agree with Wolf on tactics, but the fact is that human rights matter, even if they don't matter to the Chinese government.  

Teddy is right that embarrassing the Chinese won't work.  But bending over backwards to give China everything it wants hasn't worked either.  Which we are doing, e.g.:

-  The Bush Administration just took China off the list of worst human rights offenders, contrary to evidence of lack of any improvement.
-  The FDA looks the other way while we allow Chinese factories to put God knows what in our seafood, vitamin C, toothpaste, dogfood, etc., etc.
-  American business and trade negotiators look the other way on Chinese use of forced labor, counterfeiting,  currency overvaluation, etc., etc., etc.
-  The US and UN continue to give China weak raps on the knuckles for funding the genocide and wholesale rape and torture of half a million people in Sudan.

We can go to the Olympics, but we need to learn to play hardball with people who don't understand (or respect) anything else.

would mean doing something about our enormous trade deficit with that country.  Until we do that and China is no longer our "banker," all other talk -- including rhetoric comparing China to Nazi Germany and labeling Americans who watch the Olympics as aiders and abettors of genocide -- is meaningless and even counterproductive.

It's ironic that many who profess to care about human rights in a country tend to know so little about it, and often promote policies that would actually turn the clock back.  In reality, civil society and awareness about human rights are growing in China, and the government is trying to accomodate this trend while holding onto its power.  Just because the communist regime is still in power doesn't mean that there has been no progress in China, or that Americans should not stay engaged in the country.  

"Frank Wolf cares about human rights, even in China. Is this the kind of man you want representing you in Congress?"

"Frank Wolf says that the best way to fight genocide in China is to tell 10th district residents who cheer on America's Olympic athletes this summer that THEY are the main problem. Is this the kind of man you want representing you in Congress -- all talk, no action?"

I like that, Lowell :)

Frank Wolf worries about China's human rights, but fails to vote against human right violations in Congress.

All Talk, No Action.

might be starting to wonder about Frank Wolf's comparisons of everything he doesn't like to Nazi Germany.  For instance, this is one of my "favorites":

Where in the world did Frank Wolf ever say that doing such a thing was the quote "best way"?  

measures that would hurt China, but he has ranted about how
"Bush's presence would be akin to President Franklin D. Roosevelt sitting in the same stands as Germany's Adolf Hitler in 1936" and how "any American seen waving in the stands 'will go down in history as cooperating in the genocide Olympics of 2008.'"  I'm sure Republicans are thrilled with the Hitler analogy to Bush, and I'm sure everyone else is thrilled about being told by Wolf that watching the Olympics is cooperating in genocide.  

That most people really don't care that much, and no voter will base their vote off your melodramatic take on Wolf's comments.

that most people are very interested in having a representative who isn't an embarrassment to the district, someone who shoots off his mouth in the most extreme ways (comparing everything to NAZI GERMANY, possibly the most vile regime in the history of humanity?!?), and someone who doesn't insult his constituents by telling them if they cheer on American athletes this summer, they're somehow "cooperating in the genocide Olympics of 2008."

By the way, I am also quite certain that if you keep coming on here, insulting people, throwing out red herrings, and not staying on point, you'll be banned.

Where did I insult anyone, throw our a red herring, or not stay on point?

history.

I'm still not seeing anything.

I don't mean to harp on this, but if you're threatening to ban me (again), I'd like to know what it is that's troubling you.

"Frank Wolf knows that torture is wrong, yet failed to vote against torture. Is this the kind of man you want in your Congress"

http://ap.google.com/article/A...

As Judy Feder's own staff admitted, torture is already illegal under U.S. law; yet they want Frank Wolf to vote to needlessly restrict the CIA on how it can gather intelliegence. A debate on the national security of this country is no place to stage a partisan sideshow.

is violating the law, therefore he should be impeached?

Knock yourself out.

How morally bankrupt this is.

I am sorry to inform you this, but torture is a human rights issue. And for a man who knows and cares about human rights as Frank Wolf, he surely is morally bankrupt to vote in favor of torture.

Frank Wolf can't really do anything about human rights China, but he has a lot of power when it comes to U.S. human right conduct.

Yet he failed to do what was right for partisan reasons. He is too scared to upset his political patrons.

caught the error after posting.

But I'll say it again, torture is already illegal in the U.S. Frank Wolf voted against a needless restriction on CIA information gathering because he values the security of the country more than a partisan sideshow put on by the Democrats.

Torture is wrong, which is why Wolf opposes it, and has never voted to allow it.

If Wolf has enough courage to tell people not to watch a TV show because doing so would be siding with human right violators...

Why didn't he have enough courage to make a strong statement for human rights and against torture?

Wolf is a political coward. That is why. He can't deal with the repercussion from the Republican leadership.

He had to side with the partisan sideshow of further enabling Bush.

Pathetic.

I somewhat admire Feder's criticism of Wolf and I now sort of understand where she is coming from on China but this stuff is solid gold for Wolf. Human rights is one of the few areas this guy is untouchable on. This is exactly what has given the perception that he is a "moderate" repub. I have had a chance to read many of the comments and the original article and you never want to be "percieved" as being on the side of the Chinese. I do believe Wolf actually disagrees with Bush on this issue. He will be seen as a hero to many republicans and dems back in his district because he seen as "defending" America.  

There are plenty of stuff to go after Wolf on as I said before like Iraq, energy, global warming, abortion but critiquing him for taking a hard stand for human rights is a lose-lose situation for the dems. I know I am going to get hammered by my fellow progressives for saying this but Feder  is really playing with "fire" with regards to this issue.  

Wolf is taking a dishonest position since he is okay with human rights violations done by Americans.

Wolf can't even vote for a bill that explicitly tells the CIA that they shouldn't torture prisoners, which is already illegal.

Again, Wolf lacks the moral clarity to vote for an outright human right violation and which is illegal again.

Wolf is weak on human rights, very weak, and the window dressing that he puts forth shouldn't distract us on this.

Meanwhile, the bill absolutely does NOT "explitictly" ban torture; it limits the CIA to the Army Field Manual. So the total effect of the bill is to reduce the capability of the CIA to collect information to protect the country.

Go Left is right: Wolf has a stellar record on human rights, and it comes from doing the right thing, instead of being distracted by partisan games put on by Democrats who care more about beating Republicans than getting things accomplished.

Repeat your mantra as many times as you like, as long as you don't have to think about it. "There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home." Don't forget to click those ruby slippers!

The Army Field manual explicitly spells out the techniques that are and are not allowable in order that US service personnel treat all detainees in a manner that comports with our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and other anti-torture treaties, laws, AND Constitutional prohibitions (Hi, 8th Amendment!). By explicitly spelling out what is allowed, the AFM makes clear what is and is not torture, and therefore ensures copliance. The only reason to vote against this amendment is because you favor an environment where the regulations are murky or unkown -- which means you support a legal environment in which torture occurs.

Sophisticated, or sophistry -- you tell me. All I know is that, because of this legal no-man land, detainees of the CIA and the United States Armed Froces have been murdered via torture. The legislators that don't want to change the environment clearly desire this situation to continue, and thus believe the CIA ought to be allowed to torture detainees.

I'd have more respect for Mr. Wolf et al if they'd just come right out and say they believe that the CIA should be allowed to torture detainees.  

What recourse would there be for someone who doesn't believe the CIA should be allowed to torture, but doesn't want to limit the CIA to the AFM?

Propose legislation that makes the legal environment clear as to what the CIA is and is not allowed to do.

NAME THE TECHNIQUES THAT YOU THINK OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED THAT THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL DOES NOT.

Torture is occurring because of a lack of oversight, the issuing of bogus 'legal' opinions by the DoJ's OLC and probably by 'counsel' in the executive offices of the President and Vice President. That is, torture is occurring because the President is breaking the law and breaking our treaty obligations.

So the choices are, 1) Mandate additional oversight and clarify, in exact as language as possible, the techniques that are and are not allowable, or 2) Impeach the President and Vice President. Or both.

I want Mr. Wolf and people like him on the record explaining how ____ is not torture and why the CIA should be allowed to ____.

Clarity and accountability are how we enforce our legal mores, not clouding the issue and making straw man arguments.  

Wasn't there a lot of hoo-ha in last year's cycle about not attributing blog posts and comments to candidates themselves unless you're really sure about that?

Judy hasn't criticized Frank on this issue. We have... last I checked, I'm not a Professor at Georgetown, or even female for that matter. I don't presume to speak for Judy, and I'm pretty sure neither does Lowell.

Lowell is part of the campaign staff. Obviously anything he says is representative of the campaign, and therefore representative of the candidate.

It's the same reason why anyone gives a damn about Geraldine Ferraro or Samantha Power.