Law Prof. Eric Muller of IsThatLegal? is posting hard copies of the documents surrounding FDR’s decision to intern the Japanese-Americans during World War II. Just in case there was any question whether Coble was wrong, despite his continuing defiance, Muller’s blog and Orcinus (Dave Neiwert) are Information Central on the issue.

We're heartened to see a North Carolina newspaper refusing to let Howard Coble off the hook for his recent remarks about Japanese internment camps. Same for its criticism of another U.S. Representative from North Carolina who joins the bigotry remark circle, read on.

After endorsing white supremacy lost Sen. Trent Lott the majority leader's post, one would think everyone in Congress would have gotten the memo: racially insensitive remarks are verboten. Not so, apparently.

Two U.S. representatives from North Carolina have made unthinking comments in the last week, but rather than apologize, have tried to wriggle out of them. Surely, Lott proved that was a losing strategy.

Example No. 1: Rep. Howard Coble, who wisely rebuffed a radio program caller's suggestion that Arab Americans be detained to prevent terrorism -- only to undercut himself by expressing support for Japanese internment during World War II. His idea that forced imprisonment was for Japanese Americans' own good is particularly odious and paternalistic. "We were at war," he said. "They (Japanese Americans) were an endangered species. For many of these Japanese Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street."

Then Coble kept talking and totally negated his earlier disavowal of Arab internment: "Some (Japanese Americans) probably were intent on doing harm to us, just as some of these Arab Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us."

Exhibit No. 2: Rep. Sue Myrick, who confided in a speech that she had been driving, worried, around the country for decades fueled by suspicions about Arab and Arab-looking convenience store owners.

"You know, and this can be misconstrued, but honest to goodness (husband) Ed and I for years, for 20 years, have been saying, 'You know, look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country.' Every little town you go into, you know?"

We know. Myrick, Coble and their aides have backpedaled furiously in a desperate attempt at damage control - but that excuses neither their thoughtless utterances nor the narrow and cruel ideas behind them.

While Rumsfeld was in Munich to promote war, his German family relatives were busy telling a newspaper they want nothing to do with him or his war. [link via Buzzflash]

The Rumsfelds of Weyhe-Sudweyhe, an unremarkable red-brick suburb of Bremen, were once proud of their long-lost cousin, America's secretary of state for defence - but no longer.

Like many Germans, they are appalled by Donald Rumsfeld's hawkish attitude to military action against Saddam Hussein.

"We think it is dreadful that Donald Rumsfeld is out there pushing for a war against Iraq," Karin Cecere (nee Rumsfeld), 59, said from her two-up, two-down home last week. "We are embarrassed to be related to him," she told The Telegraph.

Margarete Rumsfeld, her 85-year-old mother, was equally dismissive: "We don't have much to do with him anymore. Nowadays he's just the American defence secretary to us, but for God's sake, he'd better not start a war," she added.

The family used to welcome Rumsfeld with open arms when he came to visit. Not any more. Germany, in particular, is putting up a stink about Bush and Rumsfeld's war plans.

More than 60 per cent of Germans oppose a war and the US defence secretary has become a hate figure for the country's peace movement. His desire to topple Saddam by force is at odds with the Social Democrat-led government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, which is directly opposed to war in Iraq.

We can't wait for the inevitable political cartoons to come out of Europe portraying us all as cowboys in a rodeo throwing a lasso around the rest of the world. Yee-Haw.

The Washington Post reports today that Bush's budget hurts the poor.

The $2.23 trillion budget that Bush proposed to Congress last week would loosen federal standards and hand states vast new authority, if they want it, over housing subsidies, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and a preschool program for children from disadvantaged families, which is known as Head Start.

It would also make outright cuts in some poverty programs, such as a reduction by a fourth in the amount the government devoted last year to "community services" grants for dispossessed neighborhoods.

At the same time, the president is seeking nearly $1.5 trillion in tax cuts that would largely benefit the wealthy while potentially squeezing social spending for years to come.

These are not the same positions Bush endorsed when running for President. These are a continuation of Reagan "trickle down" economics--with a new label--"circular economics". Apparently, Bush has even more in store for us.

The president has not even publicly acknowledged this year's most dramatic tax proposal -- a plan to establish new savings accounts that would allow families to shield tens of thousands of dollars a year from all capital gains, interest and dividend taxation.... ...Policy analysts across the ideological spectrum say that the changes imbedded in Bush's budget, if adopted, would be virtually unrivaled in scale and scope. "Just the sheer volume of proposals . . . across an array of low-income programs . . . is breathtaking," said Mark Greenberg, policy director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit group that specializes in family and welfare issues.

To get around suggestions that he is cutting federal dollars from the budget for social programs, Bush has decided to merely transfer responsibility for running the programs to the states. Analysts say this is unwise:

"Offering state block grants in the middle of the most severe state fiscal crisis we've seen in a long time -- with little or no new federal aid -- almost guarantees that states will either fail to take up the option or that they will use the money in inappropriate ways," Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said at a gathering of policy analysts held to assess the budget.

Bush's changes for Medicaid are sounding some of the loudest alarm bells among policy analysts and Democrats. After that come his changes to the school lunch program.

Barry Sackin, a vice president of the American School Food Service Association, said that he, too, thinks only eligible students should receive free meals, but that some of the methods the administration is contemplating would cause "collateral damage," mistakenly denying help to children who should get it.

IsThatLegal? says they have come up with the goods to make Coble apologize. Tonight and tomorrow, Prof. Muller is posting scanned copies of original documents that show the Japanese were not put into internment camps for their own benefit. The document he has up tonight is a memorandum dated February 12, 1942, from Attorney General Francis Biddle to Secretary of War Henry Stimson.

Prof. Muller points out that the memo clearly says the Japanese issue is a military one. Had it been for protection of the Japanese, he says, the Department of Justice or another law enforcement group would have had responsibility for oversight.

There's more, go over and have a look.

UPI Senior News Analyst Martin Sieff asks in his latest commentary, Is Bush competent? As to his ability to run the nation, Sieff answers with a resounding "no."

You know it's all going downhill after Sieff says, "Consider, the president inherited a United States blessed with peace, prosperity, a booming stock market and a healthy annual budget surplus. It now has none of those things."

Go read the whole thing.

IsThatLegal? is all over Coblegate. Great coverage by Law Professor Eric Muller of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Today Mueller writes that Coble was quoted as saying that if he was proven wrong about his comments, he'd apologize. The proof is up -- Mueller says he's found the goods to force Coble's promised apology.

One by one, former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley lists the failings of Bush's SOTUS in The State of the Unilateralist Case , in today's Washington Post. He begins,

The State of the Union address was President Bush's opportunity to make the case for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. He failed to do so in a convincing manner. How we get rid of Saddam Hussein is as important in the long run as just getting rid of him. If we do it the wrong way, our action could seriously damage larger national interests.

This failing resonated with us the most.

4. Bush's strong remarks ignored the fact that military actions often have unpredictable consequences. For example, the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to a continuing U.S. presence in the Islamic holy land -- something the British and French always avoided -- and radicalized a generation of Muslims, helping to create the atmosphere for the emergence of Osama bin Laden. This time, what will happen when the shooting stops is far from clear. If we are to be seen as more than transparent hypocrites, we will have to not only win a war and maintain a military presence in Iraq, but also to preside over the development of democracy in a country that makes the former Yugoslavia seem homogeneous. This is a multi-year commitment that could take thousands of U.S. lives and billions of dollars, yet there appears to be no plan for carrying it out. The president has not leveled with the American people about the cost of democratization, nor has he built popular support for occupation. By telling the American public only half the story now, he risks great national division later.

Unfortunately, a new poll by ABC and the Washington Post shows that 66% now approve of Bush's plan for military action in Iraq. 51% say they approve even without U.N. approval.

Update: History Professor Tom Spencer of Thinking Things Through explains the flaws in the new poll. (Thanks, Skippy, for the link)

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's change in ethics rules are angering watchdogs.

One of Rep. Tom DeLay's first maneuvers as majority leader was to engineer a change of House ethics rules so charities now may pay for lawmakers' travel and meals whenever they participate in charitable fund-raising events. The change came as DeLay is organizing a Florida golf tournament that will benefit a project in his district south of Houston. The tournament is expected to raise more than $1 million -- some of it coming in six-figure donations -- from lobbyists and corporate officials who have legislation before Congress."

We wrote more about this and the Republican hypocrisy involved here.

Denise Brown, sister of OJ's murdered wife Nicole Brown Simpson, has announced she may run for the U.S. Senate the next time there's an open seat.

"Brown has never run for office but said she developed an interest in national politics while lobbying in Washington for victims' rights in the wake of her sister's 1994 death and the sensational O.J. Simpson murder trial...."I think it's just the next step to where I've been the last eight years," Brown said. I don't know, I just like Washington D.C., I think Washington D.C. and I get along, I think it's a good mix there," she said."

Dream on, Denise.

"Sen. Frank Lautenberg underwent brain surgery Sunday morning related to a skiing accident in Aspen, Colo., a month earlier. Lautenberg, who turned 79 on Thursday, had fallen and hit his head while skiing on Ajax Mountain, said Tim Yehl, a spokesman for the senator. The New Jersey Democrat had had a low-grade headache since then."

He should be back in Washington two days after the procedure. We're impressed that a 79 year old is still skiing --Ajax no less--and glad that his recovery will be so speedy.

The Sunday Los Angeles Times runs a long and favorable article on Nancy Pelosi, calling her California's Most Powerful Politician.