FREAK(S) OF THE WEEK: Tom Ridge, Jack Layton and Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins

It was another week full o’ freaks on both sides of the border, with a repeat performance by Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins. So without further ado, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on this week’s Freaks of the Week:

1. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge

Tom Ridge, the very first Homeland Security Secretary, makes a stunning assertion in his new book, “The Test of Our Times.” In it, Ridge says he was pressured by others in President George W. Bush’s administration to raise the national color-coded terror threat level just prior to the 2004 election in order to scare the American people into voting Bush back into office. (As we all know, sadly, the tactic worked.)

But then Ridge went on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show and not only changed his tune, but disavowed what’s in his own book.

Under Maddow’s questioning, Ridge said, in part, “Well, I think you are suggesting that it was only driven by, quite obviously the people who made the decision knew more about the threat than you and I do. And again I think it is a pretty radical conclusion to suggest that men and women entrusted with the safety of this country would predicate a decision upon any other basis other than to keep America safe.”

This is the exact opposite of what he just wrote in his own book. Did Dick Cheney get to him before Rachel Maddow did?

2. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada

Apart from the Liberals and Conservatives (much like the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.), Canada has four parties in the House of Commons. There’s the separatist Bloc Québécois, but there’s also the New Democratic Party (NDP), which is the far left party that sees the Liberals as too centrist (much like many progressives in the U.S. see the Democrats).

For months, the NDP and its leader – Jack Layton –said there is no way they would support the ruling Conservatives, so if there were an opportunity to dissolve the government and have a new election, the NDP would do it. In fact, Layton has pilloried the Liberals for voting with the Conservatives, allowing them to stay in power. Layton has long said that his party was the real opposition.

So finally, the Liberals and its leader – Michael Ignatieff – are talking about voting down the Conservatives. But wait? What is this? Layton says that he may finally be willing to work with the Conservatives and keep them in power.

Why the change of heart? Because Layton looked at the polls and saw that they don’t look good for his party. So now, all of a sudden, with a real threat of an election looming, Layton is willing to do what he criticized the Liberals for doing for oh-so-many months. Hypocrite!

3. Kansas Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins

Last week, the FredBlog surmised that Lynn Jenkins is either incredibly stupid, racist or both. Either way, it just gets worse.

Initially, Jenkins got in trouble for saying, “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope” to go up against President Barack Obama.

When it was pointed out to her that the phrase “great white hope” is a racist term dating back to the early 20^th century, Jenkins said she had no clue about the phrase’s racist overtones. (The phrase “great white hope” came into general usage after boxer Jack Johnson, who was black, won the heavyweight title – a victory that didn’t sit well with whites. So many then worked to find a white fighter – a “great white hope” – who could snatch the title away from Johnson.)

Now it turns out that Jenkins voted for a congressional resolution back in July that posthumously pardoned Johnson of a racially motivated conviction back in 1913.

So how could Jenkins say she didn’t know what “great white hope” referred to? Her press secretary happily reports that Jenkins didn’t read the bill! That’s right – Jenkins readily admits that she votes for things she doesn’t read. Yeah, that’s a great way to make yourself look good in the eyes of voters.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Vice President Dick Cheney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who slithered out of his secret undisclosed location to frighten the American people into opposing President Obama.

I know, Dick Cheney is an easier target than a friend’s face while duck hunting. But his national security speech this past week was nothing more than a desperate and transparent attempt to rescue his flagging image by using 9/11 imagery to scare Americans into submission.

Dick used his speech to defend Bush administration policies that even George W. Bush isn’t defending anymore. He rehashed all the failed arguments of the past administration, but puts them forward as factual and credible.

Dick warns of weapons of mass destruction. You know, the ones that were famously never found.

Dick warns about the dangers in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. In truth, going into Iraq only emboldened the terrorists and created a power vacuum that allowed Al Qaida to flourish there.

Dick talks of the abuses of power at Abu Ghraib as a problem of only “a few sadistic prison guards [who] abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation and simple decency.” Again with the “few bad apples” defense? This kind of abuse is a systemic problem and those who were prosecuted were pawns in a greater game that goes far up the chain of command and needs to be investigated. But also Dick, if the military shouldn’t be violating American law, military regulation and simple decency, why is it that you continue to defend torture?

Worse, Dick promotes the practice of waterboarding/torturing alleged detainees, even though it doesn’t work. Even sensible Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree that waterboarding is torture. Conservative radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller even allowed himself to be waterboarded, thinking the exercise would prove that waterboarding is not torture. Instead, he lasted only six seconds and concluded, “It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke. It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back. … It was instantaneous, … and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Most notably, Dick said the country is less safe today because of Obama’s policies.

But even Tom Ridge – the Bush administration’s original Homeland Security Secretary – doesn’t agree. Regarding Cheney’s criticism that Obama’s decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention camp and release the so-called torture memos made the country less safe, Ridge told CNN’s John King, “I disagree with Dick Cheney. Waterboarding is a matter of debate, but it’s no longer an issue. Debate around memos and waterboarding don’t make us less safe.”

In his speech, Dick said, “To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with a far greater homeland security to make the United States a tougher target.” So why is it, Dick, that your first Homeland Security Secretary disagrees with you?

THEM DEMS ARE FREAKY TOO

Dick also lashed out at Obama for wanting to close Guantanamo Bay, “The president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system.” Dick added, “Attorney General [Eric] Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept terrorists here in the homeland.”

There is so much wrong with Dick’s statements, but what’s worse is that many Democrats are buying Dick’s illogic.

First let’s examine what Dick said. He makes it sound like the detainees will be brought to U.S. to carry on with their lives and live among us, like a paroled sex offender. In truth, the detainees would be brought and held in high-security prisons that can indeed handle them. After all, we already incarcerate serial killers, child rapists, and all other evildoers, (to use a word Dick enjoys). Theodore “The Unibomber” Kaczynski, Richard “The Shoe Bomber” Reid, Charles Manson and Oklahoma City bomber co-conspirator Terry Nichols are all adequately housed in American prisons.

Omar Kadhr is one of those being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was captured by American forces at the age of 15 after allegedly throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed a U.S. soldier and has been held there for six years. Does Dick really think American courts and prisons couldn’t handle Kadhr?

Actually, Kadhr’s situation is exactly the reason so many don’t want to bring the detainees to the “homeland” – because the case of them is so flimsy, so many laws were broken in their detainment, and many have not been charged with a crime, that the real fear among Dick and his adherents is that the rationale for Guantanamo Bay will be exposed as a charade and sham.

But for Democrats, the real issue is allowing the fear mongering to take hold. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters this week: “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.” This is cowardly and pathetic.

And then came the vote on Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo. With 90 of the 100 senators voting in opposition, Democrats and Republicans joined together to allow NIMBYism (the sentiment of “not in my backyard”) to rule the day. Democratic senators have been lining up to say they don’t want the detainees brought to their states.

As for Obama, in his speech he said that since some of the detainees haven’t actually committed a crime – but may pose a threat to America – it would be illegal to incarcerate them. So, he wants to make new law that would make prolonged and indefinite detention legal.

Was this really the change we were supposed to believe in?