They say there’s no honor among thieves, but criminals may look like saints compared to some Republicans in Washington, D.C.

And no, we’re not just talking about the House budget bill that cuts programs for the poorest, most needy Americans, and a companion bill that cuts taxes for the richest, most well-off Americans. That’s simply an obscenity.

“Name just one religion in the world that preaches the value of asking the most of those who have the least and asking nothing of those who have the most,” said U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat.

Edwards must know how much the Republicans say they love religion and those who practice it.

What he may not know is that the GOP version of the Bible omits certain passages (”And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”) and highlights certain others (”If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”).

Then again, religion doesn’t have much to do with Republican tax policy. When the GOP gets around to helping its real constituents — i.e., those with the means to keep them in office — the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule go right out the window. That’s something truly religious, Bible-believing voters might want to keep in mind the next time their Christian Coalition voter guide says Republicans are the party most hospitable to their faith.

Another thing to keep in mind is the dishonorable way the administration of President George W. Bush, who never found time to fight in a war, much less show up for a portion of his National Guard duty, mistreats some of those honorable soldiers who did fight, but happen to disagree with his initiatives.

The latest victim is U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam war veteran. Murtha is well-known as a hawk on Capitol Hill, and voted to give the president the ability to send our troops to Iraq.

But on Thursday, Murtha reversed that stance, saying its time to end our occupation of Iraq.

“Our military’s done everything that has been asked of them. The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It’s time to bring the troops home.”

Now, consider for a moment that Murtha might know what he’s talking about. He was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Heart medals in Vietnam, so he knows what a quagmire looks like from the front lines as well as from Congress. And, as a man who’s killed for his country and who supported the initial invasion of Iraq, he cannot be tarred with the “soft on terrorism” label.

Or can he?

After the requisite line of praise for Murtha’s veteran status, the White House proceeded to say this: “So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of a historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists.”

Forget the Michael Moore reference or the standard “extreme liberal wing” line. Accusing a respected vet of wanting to “surrender to terrorists”? That proves that Samual Johnson was right when he said patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

And it’s not the first time that Bush or his minions have attacked veterans. Just ask former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland or current U.S. Sen. John Kerry.

What the White House said is simply wrong, and ample evidence of the desperation that has gripped the administration under the weight of scandal. The fact that Murtha has a very legitimate point — U.S. soldiers have become the targets of Iraq’s insurgency, and progress toward turning the country over to its people has moved at a glacial pace — makes the Bush reaction all the more despicable.

No one in the nation — regardless of how noble, or how devoted to the service of their country — is safe from the attacks of this administration, which considers simple dissent tantamount to treason. The irony is, the traitors are the ones inside the administration itself.

Editor’s note: This blog posting has been changed from its original version. The original version included an incorrect attribution for the paraphrased quotation that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

How hard is it to write an entire column about the controversy over golf course developer Bill Walters’ sweetheart deal with the city of Las Vegas and not mention Mayor Oscar Goodman?

Ask Goodman’s biographer, Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith.

Smith, in his column today writes that the city is getting taken by Walters, mostly because of the fecklessness of “city officials.”

In that, he’s absolutely right (although it should be noted that Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian has resisted the taxpayer giveaway to Walters).

But Smith makes nary a mention of Goodman, who led the council Nov. 2 in lifting a deed restriction on the Walters-owned Royal Links golf course, adjacent to the city’s sewer treatment plant. The city gave Walters clear title to the land for $7.2 million, a fraction of its assessed value, and Goodman was later quoted by my friend and colleague Jon Ralston as saying, “I don’t see any sweetheart deal.”

But apparently something was wrong, because shortly after Attorney General George Chanos announced an investigation of the matter, Goodman led the council in re-imposing the deed restriction at the course and canceling a tell-all public hearing into the history of Walters’ dealings with the city on Royal Links.

So writing about the controversy without mentioning Goodman takes some degree of skill, to say nothing of a willingness to avoid a key element of the tale.

But as we’ve noted before, Smith is hardly a critic of the mayor, even when he should be.