Senator David Vitter (R-LA) first ‘big name’ from DC madam’s phone number list

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

It apparently happened several years ago, he’s apologized to his wife and asked for forgiveness from God, but the beat goes on.

As Brian at Iowa Voice points out, the left is predictably latching on to this news as if it ‘proves’ something about the right and some kind of ‘morals hypocrisy.’ All it proves to me is that we’re all fallible and susceptible to the unseemly trappings that the ‘good life’ entails, and how we must work hard at resist them. It’s easier for some than others.

Contrary to the usual gum-flapping coming from the typical leftiots about how the ‘right’ has no room to talk about morals seeing as some of their own don’t hold up to standards they say others should, here’s a much needed clarification – which I’m sure will be ignored by the willfully ignorant: The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life – they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.

Of course, the left would have any discussions on leading a good, moral life shut down if they could and this is the perfect way they try and do it: by yelling about moralistic conservatives gone bad, because if the left had their way on this, we would all be wallowing in the same moral relativism pit that they do, where there is no right or wrong, no moral or immoral – there just “is” (think Bill Clinton) and our cultural decline would be even worse than it is now.

Sorry, ‘bats. I’ll take a pass on that.

And one other thing, as Brian also notes: Vitter’s name is only the first of many – Republican and Democrat alike – we’ll be hearing about from this infamous list in the weeks/months to come. So don’t get too giddy with excitement, Democrats.

Update I: Just to clarify, none of what I wrote in this post was done in an effort to ‘excuse’ the wrongness of what Vitter has done. I just get irked at the fact that the left thinks things like this are supposed to invalidate the message across the board. It doesn’t. It just means there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle on the issue of ‘morality’ who should do a lot better job of practicing what they preach. It makes it a lot more difficult to sell the message when the salesman isn’t doing his part, too.

Update II: I see from my Sitemeter this post is getting a lot of attention in, ahem, certain ‘bat caves. Good. Just a reminder to newbies: insulting the host and utilizing extremely vulgar language in an attempt to ‘prove’ your point is a surefire way for your comment to get dumped in the trash heap. If you can’t grow up for a few minutes and behave yourselves, it’s probably a good idea for you to slither back to your little lefty havens where you can whine about how mean ol’ radrighty ST ‘censored’/banned you. :((

Others: Captain Ed, Rob at Say Anything (who notes that this will affect Rudy’s campaign, too, for reasons explained in his post), John Hawkins, Ann Althouse, Dan Riehl, JammieWearingFool, James Joyner

Related/Flashback:

233 thoughts on “Senator David Vitter (R-LA) first ‘big name’ from DC madam’s phone number list

  1. Pingback: Conservative Outpost

  2. Your point “The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life – they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them” is certainly well-taken. Still, the song and dance is unfortunately the same, the hypocrisy begins immediately, and Vitter is no exception. The formula is the same: first the apology, then the invocation of God’s forgiveness, and finally, a refusal to comment out of “respect for my family” (the guy solicited a hooker, just when did “respect for family” enter the mix?) Sometimes, the message isn’t enough – you’ve got to practice what you preach. It’s disappointing when something like this happens, not because it necessarily detracts from the conservative message, but because it forces us to once again defend against inane charges from liberals.

  3. Pingback: Don Surber » Blog Archive » Sex is private

  4. Sometimes, the message isn’t enough – you’ve got to practice what you preach.

    Agreed. I just hate how the left tries to negate the message when something like this happens, as if the message itself was wrong.

  5. I hate it, too, but committing adultery and soliciting a prostitute is wrong, and the unfortunate fact that Vitter’s a Republican who supposedly espouses those views does not invalidate their truth. It just makes our job a little more difficult in fending off the lefties, that’s all.

    As for Surber’s comment about B. Frank’s ring run out of his house, that’s not the only favorable comparison between Vitter’s situation and Frank’s :)

  6. I hate it, too, but committing adultery and soliciting a prostitute is wrong, and the unfortunate fact that Vitter’s a Republican who supposedly espouses those views does not invalidate their truth.

    Vitter’s wrongness isn’t in question in my post, for the record.

  7. The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life – they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.

    Yes, I remember that knowing, forgiving, magnanimous, none-are-spared-temptation attitude being on full display when they impeached Bill Clinton for a quickie.

  8. It is all relative, but paying a prostitute is less immoral than pressuring an unpaid intern to put out or get out. Besides I thought democrats liked helping sex workers.

  9. Pingback: UNCoRRELATED

  10. I agree David. I have heard some on the left talk about legalizing prostitution. But here we find out the end result of that idea, and these people want to use it as a weapon against this man. They are such hypocrites. If Vitter was bold, he would call them all hypocrites and tell them it is a matter between him and his wife. I don’t understand how the left can take themselves serious. They defended Bill to the very end, even when charges were brought up about his perjury, all you heard from them was about how Bill lied about sex, who cares. Now all of a sudden these people want us to take them seriously. Shut up you idiots. – Lorica

  11. Vitter may have had a problem in 1999 as well with a woman he had a lengthy affair with. Can he just keep having affairs knowing it is alright because God will always forgive him? At what point does personal responsibility come into play? At what point does God and his wife say he needs to keep his pants zipped up?

  12. The DC Madame said she was releasing the names because they had already been leaked and therefore anybody can add false or unverified names to the list and she could do nothing about it. Unless a name becaomes public that is not on her original list the source floating it should be held legally responsible. Not that that is much of a drawback for those in the scandal business. I expect that we are going to have a drip drip of names coinciding with the events of the day, to the disadvantage of Reublicans. The Republicans must counter with public exposure, no pun intended, of a name or two of Democrats and their affiliated Don Juans. Vitter said he went to confession and made peace with his wife and God. That is good enough for me. From what I have read about him, he is way above the Landriues and other scandal linked politicians in La.

  13. Disappointing. Vitter’s the best Senator we’ve got.

    As a Louisianian, I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Here, let’s take a flashback to his 2004 campaign…

    “This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won’t do anything about it.

    We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. I am the only candidate proposing changes to the senate rules to stop liberal obstructionists from preventing an up or down vote on issues like this, judges, energy, and on and on.” stated David Vitter.

    Evidently his definition of “traditional marriage” that he beat us over the head with, again and again and again… doesn’t include monogamy.

    Nice.

  14. Lorica.

    Funny you bring up Clinton.

    Clinton lied about sex and was impeached by people like you. At the time it was said by the Right that it was not because of the sex (having sex is not criminal you know), but because Clinton lied under oath. One after another Republicans came out to declare to all four winds how our Constitution and American Jurisprudence could not survive, if we just looked the other way and Clinton was just let go after lying under oath.

    And then we have Libby and what do you HYPOCRITES ON THE RIGHT SAY NOW?????

    Let Libby off, no underlying crime, etc, etc.

    Lorica…. You are bleeding from your tong. Next time be more careful when insulting people.

  15. Vitter may have had a problem in 1999 as well with a woman he had a lengthy affair with.

    Please prove this gttim. – Lorica

  16. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter how you spin it. The man said infidelity is a reason to step down from public office, when it wasn’t HIS infidelity. Apparently, Vitter feels that only getting caught at infidelity is worth resignation of an elected official.

    Which is typical, really. It doesn’t matter what you did, it’s how fast you apologized for it. Republicans aren’t perfect, just forgiven. They’re sorry, and will never do it again, every single time.

  17. In the interest of reasoned discourse, I’ll attempt a rational response to your post, ST. I do agree wholeheartedly with the idea that just because one man falls, the moral message remains. But the ability of that one man to speak for that message is substantially diminished, and I hope you can understand, gone forever in the eyes of many. If that man is an island, he bears little weight on the movement as a whole. But as his company grows, the ability of the movement itself to be credible begins to wane.

    I have no problem with politicians promoting a moral lifestyle, but I just wish they’d do it by living one, rather than trying to legislate it on people who haven’t yet received God’s Grace in their lives. Really, it isn’t that hard to avoid sleeping with a prostitute, now is it, unless he suffered a very peculiar localized effect of gravity. The end result is that it feels like a deeply disturbed individual is working out his personal demons on the rest of society at large.

    Christ led by example, not judicial dicta, and the left embraces those who do; the Mother Theresas, Rick Warrens, and Dalai Llamas of the world, for example. Yes, there’s alot of hubris and crowing on the left right now at Vitter’s fall, but the true source of it isn’t 100% schadenfreude as you believe it is, but more an outlet of frustration.

    You may find this shocking, but most lefties do not consider themselves immoral as you do; they either live by a moral code derived from something other than the Bible, or they have arrived at a different reading of scripture than you have, and I wish that we could each be more accepting of the validity of that process. Most on the left feel they’re living their lives in a manner that is within their own moral beliefs, and are sick of being told that their value judgements are invalid by people who are incapable of living within their own such as Vitter.

  18. LOL :) When did Libby lie under oath??? Who is able to prove he lied?? His story didn’t correspond with Tim Russert’s after an 8 hour grilling, so Russert is the absolute gospel truth? Whatever. The reasons Libby was being hounded is because of some stupidly false notion about getting Cheney, and because Libby was on the case for Marc Rich against Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald wanted revenge. Tell me gil, since Richard Armatage is the real leaker, and Fitzgerald knew that, why is Libby being prosecuted?? This man should serve as much time as your boy Clinton served.

    Also, Thank you for proving my point. You are still defending Clinton because he only “lied about sex”. It was still perjury. As I asked earlier, when they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then let Libby serve his time, but since Armitage was the leaker, not the President or the Vice President, your point is ridiculous at best. – Lorica

  19. Lorica, if you read the post you quoted very carefully, you may notice that I was not talking about Libby, nor did I defend Clinton.

    I said, if you recall, “The man said infidelity is a reason to step down from public office, when it wasn’t HIS infidelity.” That is a fact.

    Your eagerness to debate the wrongness of Clinton’s infidelity is appreciated, but since we agree on the topic, you’ll need to find another windmill at which to tilt. Hypocrisy remains hypocrisy, and you remain unable to spin that.

  20. The fact that Vitter is a serial adulterer is a matter between him, his wife and his god. Period.

    OTOH, the fact that he’s a stinking hypocrite is a matter between himself and his constituents. If he were my Senator I’d be happy to run him out on a rail because I have certain expectations of my leadership. If they’re going to talk the talk, and go so far as to promote codifying their “morals” into laws that I have to follow, then they damn well better walk the walk, too.

  21. I find humor when the “if it feels good, do it” Lefty crowd suddenly become Puritans!

    Sigh. Now let’s remember, where did the Puritans come from? That’s right, Massachusetts. And someone, please, refresh my memory, how does the right feel about Massachusetts now? Oh yeah, I remember now…

    :d

    It’s pretty much a given that the harder a given society comes down on personal morality, the stronger that same society repudiates that morality in the end.

  22. We find it just as humorous when those who cast stones break a big hole in their front door, Tom. Glad we can all still laugh about our political process.

  23. So when Vitter does it it simply proves that we’re all fallible and susceptible to temptation? That certainly wasn’t the way you on the right talked when it was Clinton in the glare of the spotlight! The fact is, you right wingers, especially those of the fundamentalist “Christian” persuasion ARE very condemning of those who lapse from the standards you so aggressively espouse…except when it turns out to be one of your own. In truth, one of the defining characteristics of the right wing in this country today is the effort to use the power of the government to impose their understanding of these moral issues on the entire population. Sorry, folks, you can’t talk your way out of this one. The charge of hypocrisy sticks.

  24. the only message I get from republicans is that you should be a hypocrite, tell everyone how to be moral and good, and then don’t follow your own rules. that’s the lesson here. when you have children, you should tell them not to have sex until you get married, and when they ask you if you had sex . . . lie through your teeth. hypocrisy is a virtue for republicans today because it’s better to lie about your entire life, instead of telling the truth about your sins, because it’s all for the children, you have to hide reality from them, so they don’t learn immorality. lying is good as long as republicans do it, because it’s for a moral cause.

    by the way I am an immoral liberal relativist myself. And my personal belief is that it’s not society’s business to enforce morality. Just confess tell the truth about your life. Parents are the ones who need to be in charge of their children, and they should be honest with their kids, explain the mistakes they have made in their lives, explain the times that they cheated in the marriage that it was a bad idea, something they wish they had not done. You see if you are honest about it all, there’s a much better chance that the kids will understand the lesson. if you hide your failings from your kids and lie about it, the kids will learn hipocrisy is how you deal with moral failings of your own, you hide it from others and lie about it.

    The problem here with vitter’s behavior to a liberal like myself is not the act, it’s the hypocrisy. Taht’s the issue. And that’s why it’s not such a big deal when the democrats are found with whores, they generally don’t try to protect individuals from moral failings by enacting laws that restrict individual liberties. to a liberal, your business is your own business, what goes on in the bedroom is not for society to legislate but for your family to deal with. on the other hand, to a republican, the law should be changed to enforce a societal morality, and that’s why republicans are held to a different standard.

  25. Well put, Eric.

    Those who attempt to legislate morality do so at the cost of the morals of anyone else. More stinging still when those who say in every word and deed, “Your kind cannot be trusted to live as civilized people, so obey me.”

    It’s when those people who have built a career out of legislating their own morality over top anyone who dares to disagree fall short of their own standards, that we revolt. And truly, it’s revolting.

    Don’t tell me who to doink, if you can’t control your own doinker.

  26. So when Vitter does it it simply proves that we’re all fallible and susceptible to temptation?

    Yes.

    That certainly wasn’t the way you on the right talked when it was Clinton in the glare of the spotlight!

    That’s not true. But then again, there was a lot more to Clinton’s affair(s) than the left is willing to acknowledge.

    The fact is, you right wingers, especially those of the fundamentalist “Christian” persuasion ARE very condemning of those who lapse from the standards you so aggressively espouse…except when it turns out to be one of your own.

    1. It doesn’t take a “fundamentalist” (I’m hardly one) to recognize that something like this is wrong and 2. The right does a hell of a lot more bending over backward to condemn their own on any number of issues than the left does, so you don’t even want to go there.

  27. why does this post have to be the “left”? Vitter is suffering under the weight of his own words now. He has been living in a glass house and fearlessly throwing stones. Now comeuppance has arrived and it is past due. If he had never uttered a word about the defense of traditional marriage this may have blown over.
    This post plays to the weak minded. Analogize away between the dems and the reps and you are still at the rotted moral core of modern politics. Hold them all accountable.

  28. “They are such hypocrites. If Vitter was bold, he would call them all hypocrites and tell them it is a matter between him and his wife.”

    So, why doesn’t he also keep his strong views on abortion, gay marriage, and moral virtues between himself and his wife?

    He doesn’t – he tries to legislate his own morality and yet is clearly incapable of following those rules he’d put on the rest of us.

    You’ll make the same distinction with Al Gore etc. using any power whatsoever and brand him a massive hypocrite, so why isn’t Vitter?

    “I don’t understand how the left can take themselves serious. They defended Bill to the very end, even when charges were brought up about his perjury, all you heard from them was about how Bill lied about sex, who cares. Now all of a sudden these people want us to take them seriously.”

    It’s too bad you didn’t take terrorism seriously while you engaged in an all out war against the blowjob.

    Does it feel good that 3000 people + 3500 troops have died due to your incredibly misguided wrath?

    “Shut up you idiots.”

    Come and make me, you cretin.

  29. “2. The right does a hell of a lot more bending over backward to condemn their own on any number of issues than the left does, so you don’t even want to go there.”

    This is demonstrably false, and I would like to go there.

    Name an issue, or one of your “own” this applies to.

  30. Lorica,

    You wrote “Who is able to prove he [Libby] lied? … As I asked earlier, when they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then let Libby serve his time…”

    No one – including Armitage and Libby – has been prosecuted for the leak itself, largely because Libby’s obstruction and lying made the intent element of such a prosecution difficult to a degree that Fitzgerald wasn’t confident in pursuing it. The idea however, that somehow obstruction and lying to investigators are not “real” crimes is patently false. (See here for a helpful primer – with citations – on the main facts and arguments.)

    Scooter Libby was CONVICTED of not only obstruction of justice, but perjury (lying under oath) and lying to the FBI. The standard for conviction in a criminal case – which his was – is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” so I’m a little unclear as to what elements of lying and proof beyond a reasonable doubt dissatisfy you. Further, the crimes of which Libby was convicted carry a sentence completely in line with the sentence he received, and Republican Prosecutor Fitzgerald and a three-judge appeals panel (majority Republican) concurred.

    No injustice was done to Libby whatsoever, except perhaps by his masters. The only injustice is the mockery of due process and equality before the law that his commutation has made.

    With regard to Vitter, it’s simply not the case that religious conservatives espouse a lifestyle to which they simply aspire. They roundly persecute, ridicule and denigrate those who don’t agree with the manner in which they choose to pursue that lifestyle, and yet so often fail to live up to those same standards. (Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, etc.)

    Vitter’s fall would garner a lot less attention than it has if he had simply kept his mouth shut earlier on and tried to live his life as best he could. As soon as he stuck his nose into everyone else’s business, he took on the responsiblity to live up to what he was demanding of others. “Do as I say and not as I do,” is a crock, no matter who is espousing it.

  31. Eric:

    the only message I get from republicans is that you should be a hypocrite, tell everyone how to be moral and good, and then don’t follow your own rules.

    Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?

    Brian:

    It’s when those people who have built a career out of legislating their own morality over top anyone who dares to disagree fall short of their own standards, that we revolt. And truly, it’s revolting.

    BS. If you guys found stuff like this ‘truly revolting’ then you wouldn’t have rallied around to President Clinton’s defense the numerous times it was alleged that he, um, strayed from his wife (to put it mildly). Remember, Clinton was a ‘middle of the road’ Democrat (supposedly) who preached ‘family values’ himself, until it came to a point where it was beyond absurd for him to do so, considering what kind of husband he was to his wife.

    This is all about the left getting in another dig at the morality crowd in general – whether they happen to be hypocrites are not. Morals? What’s that?

    So save your little lecture for people who are dumb enough to believe it, ok?

  32. “The right does a hell of a lot more bending over backward to condemn their own on any number of issues than the left does, so you don’t even want to go there. ”

    Examples?

  33. “Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?”

    It’s your side who calls all liberals criminals.

    See Ann Coulter among others.

    Tell me when any of you have ever paid attention to the “thousands” of people with any progressive viewpoint other than to think of them as degenerates.

  34. Sister, I voted for Bush in 2000, and was an active duty member of the Navy through the Clinton scandal. I was not a fan. I accept that you might assume that about me, based on the fact that I am now opposed to the Right. Many thinking people change their political views in response to factual events in the world, and I am one of them.

    So your attacks on me for doing things I never did, while quoting words I did say, are somewhat misguided. Myspace is a better forum for such a blog, wouldn’t you say?

  35. Please prove this gttim. – Lorica

    I was not there, and there was no blue dress that I know of so I can’t prove it. The Louisiana Weekly first reported this as Vitter geared up for a 2002 run for governor. Actually it was not an affair, but a year long run with a paid professional. Just prior to this story being published, Vitter pulled out of the campaign to deal with “marital problems.” Of course he has denied it. Other media followed up and talked with the woman, Wendy Cortez, who confirmed the story.

    Now I imagine you will deny it as well.

  36. Myspace is a better forum for such a blog, wouldn’t you say?

    I would suggest you go there, then.

  37. Me:

    The right does a hell of a lot more bending over backward to condemn their own on any number of issues than the left does, so you don’t even want to go there

    Angryflower:

    This is demonstrably false, and I would like to go there.

    Name an issue, or one of your “own” this applies to.

    Gladly:

    First, lefty hypocrisy on condemnation:

    —- Nutroots double standards strike again: Responses to Coulter versus responses to Stark -and Marcottegate- don’t add up

    —- Liberal bloggers who have used the “f-bomb” and gotten away with it

    Next, rightie condemnation of one of the left’s most hated villain (includes more on liberal hypocrisy):

    —-The obligatory Ann Coulter vs. Elizabeth Edwards post

    —-Conservative debate: when passion turns to poison

    —- What he said

    This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter says versus things Bill Maher, Michael Moore (among other far lefties) say. The left flips out when Ann Coulter supposedly calls for someone’s assassination yet either don’t comment or barely mention Bill Maher’s thinking it would be cool to assassinate Dick Cheney. I would say a good 50 to 60% of the right pretty much routinely condemns Ann Coulter now but the left doesn’t do the same for jerks like Bill Maher.

    That you would deny it just shows how deeply your head is buried in the sand.

  38. It’s your side who calls all liberals criminals.

    Source?

    Tell me when any of you have ever paid attention to the “thousands” of people with any progressive viewpoint other than to think of them as degenerates.

    I pay attention to Kevin Drum, Jeralyn Merritt, Ellis Henican, and other rational lefties whose posts aren’t drowning in the ‘hate Bush/Republicans’ theme.

    I really do think the fringe left is not ‘fringe’ anymore, but instead the mainstream and I’ve written about it here a few times. I don’t pay attention to as many people on the left as I used to, but that’s primarily due to the fact that most of them have allowed hatred of all things Bush cloud their judgement.

  39. Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?

    sister toldjah, the problem here is that these people do not generally confess their sins, they don’t admit to adultery they do not admit to homosexuality, every single one of them say that they are virtuous, and then every now and then you’ll have a vitter be discovered, and I have to think to myself, “How many of them are hypocrites, and how many of them are truely virtuous.”

    Because none of them admit to their sins, I find it very difficult to trust them. By pure chance, some of the people that say they are moral and want to enact laws which enforce morality on society are in fact moral, but I certainly can’t tell which ones are the hypocrites.

    It’s like when the catholic sex abuse cases broke. When that happened, the church’s response was to hush everything up and admit to nothing. So we, the public are the in the position of not ever being able to really trust the priests, because their own organization we know for a fact will cover up and hide any cases of abuse.

    I know of course, that there are plenty of moral upright honest priests, but when the church decided on a course of action that hid sexually abusive priests, it tarred all of them.

    How many of the republicans are morally corrupt? I have no idea, they all say the same thing that they are moral good people, none of them confess to immorality, we the public only find out when it comes out in a legal document. so of course I trust none of them.

    I saw, let’s forget this whole republican idea of legislating morality. Let’s forget worrying about homosexual marriages, let’s quit worrying about protecting children from society, and instead move the job of teaching ethics and morality from the government, back to the parents, and families, let us stop trying to legislate ethics. If we do that, then politicians could be honest with us about their own moral failings instead of this constant lying.

  40. Let’s be clear.

    The fact is Vitter has based his entire political career on telling others how they should conduct their personal lives. Based on that alone, Vitter is a comical and pathetic hypocrite.

    But there’s more.

    One would think that someone with Vitter’s level of education might learn a thing or two from experience. After all, in the special election Vitter won to become Senator, there was a credible story that Vitter was engaged in a long-running affair with a New Orleans prostitute. He escaped that charge.

    Further, the special election he won existed because his predecessor, Bob Livingston, had resigned because of his own sexual infidelities.

    One would think these experiences alone would have caused Vitter to think twice about procuring still more services from prostitutes.

    But noooo.

  41. Cool, you cited yourself!

    In every case.

    “This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter ”

    They all mention her, too. Clearly *you* will condemn
    *Ann Coulter*.

    The John Hawkins cites re” calling people fags are specious and you know it.

    “he’s apologized to his wife and asked for forgiveness from God, but the beat goes on.”

    That’s condemnation?

  42. Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?

    Well, Sister, how do we know that these thousands of conservatives are upstanding and moral? Sen. Vitter certainly masqueraded quite successfully as an upstanding moral conservative until he was exposed. Why are we supposed to accept at face value any other conservative’s claim that he or she lives an upstanding moral life?

  43. Cool, you cited yourself!

    In every case.

    So? I’m not the only one who was doing the condemning. Did you even READ what I wrote? Checked links within? Apparently not.

    They all mention her, too. Clearly *you* will condemn
    *Ann Coulter*.

    Yup. As well as Mark Foley, Sean Hannity among others.

    The John Hawkins cites re” calling people fags are specious and you know it.

    Huh?

    That’s condemnation?

    Apparently it’s so. You really ARE having trouble reading. Check the update. Also remember this: the right doesn’t and shouldn’t jump at the left’s demand to ‘condemn’ anyone. You only should condemn something if you feel it’s condemnation worthy. So there are going to be times when someone says or does something the right doesn’t feel is wrong to say or do, and they aren’t going to leap to condemn it. There are also going to be times when whatever condemnation IS issued isn’t going to be good enough for certain folks. What I object to is how the left is hypocritical on issues like these and my posts I referenced show that this isn’t the first time I’ve complained about it, nor is it the first time it happened.

    Comprende?

    Furthermore, I noticed you didn’t address this part of what I wrote:

    This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter says versus things Bill Maher, Michael Moore (among other far lefties) say. The left flips out when Ann Coulter supposedly calls for someone’s assassination yet either don’t comment or barely mention Bill Maher’s thinking it would be cool to assassinate Dick Cheney. I would say a good 50 to 60% of the right pretty much routinely condemns Ann Coulter now but the left doesn’t do the same for jerks like Bill Maher.

    You better make your response REALLY good, because my patience is running paper thin.

  44. sister toldjah, the problem here is that these people do not generally confess their sins, they don’t admit to adultery they do not admit to homosexuality, every single one of them say that they are virtuous, and then every now and then you’ll have a vitter be discovered, and I have to think to myself, “How many of them are hypocrites, and how many of them are truely virtuous.”

    So the moral of the story is to never trust anyone who talks about how leading a moral life is so rewarding and enriching on many levels? That certainly would be the easy way out, wouldn’t it?

    If that’s the case, then we shouldn’t trust anyone about anything, because just about everyone is a hypocrite about something they say or do.

  45. First of all, as a left-leaning Christian, I deeply resent the intimation that the left is unconcerned with morality or even advocates an amoral society. We do recognize that some behavior must be rewarded and some punished by law — such as lying to Congress, or a Grand Jury, stealing, violence against the innocent, etc. etc. etc. There are also certain values that different religions hold that are in opposition to one another and those differences should be honored by freedom under the law. I agree with Sister’s point — in as much as the moral lapse of a man doesn’t invalidate the message of morality. However, Vitter — like Libby, like Randy Cunningham, like Gingrich, like — well, Bush — have done more than just violate their own personal ethics. These liars and adulterers have advocated and actively instituted the exclusion and criminalization of people who believe differntly from them. Some faiths allow abortion, some faiths allow same sex marriage — yet these whoremongers and liars have fought to marginalize moral un-hypocritical citizens.
    What the majority of the left is criticising, is the Right’s inability to protect different citizens’ different beliefs — the Right’s inability to see that protecting the rights of the minority protects the rights of EVERYONE. Back to the founding fathers: it’s illegal for Puritan christians to burn Quaker christians at the stake; to today, it SHOULD be illegal for Baptists to deny Metropolitan Christian Church members the right to marry.
    We’re not gloating that Vitter betrayed his state, his family and his God — it’s sad. We’re appalled, however, that this degenerate has the GALL to judge other Christians as unworthy of civil rights.
    My morals are differnt from his — I don’t think its good to hire whores — but that’s between his God, his wife and a divorce court. He SHOULD be censured, as anyone like him, for trying to legislate a particular religion above the rights of others and their beliefs.

  46. Oh well, all interns and campaign workers at the White House have been free from sexual harassment during this current administration!

  47. “So the moral of the story is to never trust anyone who talks about how leading a moral life is so rewarding and enriching on many levels? That certainly would be the easy way out, wouldn’t it?”

    Wow, that’s an obtuse response.

    No, the moral of the story is to lead by example rather than by trying to place one’s self on a pedestal by denigrating others, as people like Mr. Vitter have so often done.

    In the free market of ideas, if a “moral” life is rewarding, it will be apparent and others will adopt it. Even “advertising” or talking up such a life is fine and good, but the Vitters of the world go beyond that and support things like the Defense of Marriage Act – for which Bill Clinton should rightly be disdained as well – and attempt to shove their particular take on the fine points of morality down everybody else’s throat.

    If somebody like Vitter is going to make his political bones by forcing his way into the lives and bedrooms of consenting adults, the least he can do is not be a demonstrably lying and hypocritical blowhard.

  48. This is just running around in circles.

    If I’m going to make a point it’s that by trying to pin generalities on individual actions, or attributing them to a political side, is beyond pointless.

    These are politicians, after all.

    “most of them have allowed hatred of all things Bush cloud their judgement.”

    Instead of condemning Vitters actions today, a great majority of bloggers are allowing their hatred of all things Clinton to cloud their judgment.

    It’s silly and quite frankly I’m not expecting nor demanding any sort of condemnation anyway. Just don’t try to say that calling Vitter a hypocrite isn’t based in fact.

    Furthermore, I noticed you didn’t address this part of what I wrote:

    This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter says versus things Bill Maher, Michael Moore (among other far lefties) say. The left flips out when Ann Coulter supposedly calls for someone’s assassination yet either don’t comment or barely mention Bill Maher’s thinking it would be cool to assassinate Dick Cheney. I would say a good 50 to 60% of the right pretty much routinely condemns Ann Coulter now but the left doesn’t do the same for jerks like Bill Maher.

    “Bill Maher’s thinking it would be cool to assassinate Dick Cheney.”

    I get your point, not to be picky but that’s not anywhere near what he actually said.

    Ann Coulter makes a living out of these sorts of condemnable statements. Bill Maher as well. Michael Moore? I can’t really see many examples of him doing so but I’m sure there’s all kinds of examples on the left.

    It doesn’t matter. We can both dredge up righteous indignation until the cows come home. These people are pundits and entertainers, not legislators.

    You better make your response REALLY good, because my patience is running paper thin.

    Or what, you’ll spank me?

    I kept spelling his name Vintner…I’m really thirsty now.

  49. This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter says versus things Bill Maher, Michael Moore (among other far lefties) say.

    Please show me where any lefty pundit has suggested death for a politician and federal judges like Coulter has. I went through this on another blog and never got an example. I do not mean a politician like Maher, who has no problem attacking Clinton as well as anybody else, but a pundit who frequently appears on network television or in the mainstream print media. Michael Moore, one of the right’s favorite boogymen, is not a pundit paid for his opinion. He is a film maker and has never called for anyone’s death that I know of. Please cite the lefty pundits on the MSM who have done what Coulter has. Please, give some examples. I really would like some. Show me where lefty pundits, Coulter’s counterparts, have said the things that she has.

  50. “The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life…”

    What, like taking care of the poor? Respecting creation? Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Turning the other cheek? Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us?

    That is today’s right wing in America?!

  51. I do not mean a politician like Maher, who has no problem attacking Clinton as well as anybody else, but a pundit who frequently appears on network television or in the mainstream print media.

    Ah, so Maher doesn’t count. Got it. I find it humorous that Coulter is brought up on this site, where ST has frequently stated how much she disagrees with things Coulter says. When the answer doesn’t fit your agenda – move the goalposts. Got it.

    So basically the point here is, from those on the left, that if you don’t practice what you preach, you should be ignored. Check. Are you going now ignore pretty much everyone involved in “Live Earth” then?

  52. Vitter should just take a page out of the Al Gore book.. Come up with a scheme like “Adultery Offsets” or “Prostitution Offsets.” Then he can purchase them, and feel good about his message despite the fact that he wasn’t living up to it.

  53. You got it Ryan. I guess the point is that the many websites and comments of the left that expressed disappointment when Cheney wasn’t killed in an attack in Afghanistan are irrelevant, but because there is not one lefty “pundit” who expressed it, it doesn’t count.

  54. gil:

    Clinton lied about sex and was impeached by people like you. At the time it was said by the Right that it was not because of the sex (having sex is not criminal you know), but because Clinton lied under oath

    Your point? Are you claiming Vitter lied under oath, as Clinton did, or are you just trying to hijack a thread?

    MaryC:

    Well, Sister, how do we know that these thousands of conservatives are upstanding and moral?

    If you’ve got proof on any one of them, produce it. Otherwise, all you’re doing is making baseless insinuations that aren’t worth the bandwidth to read. I could just as easily say, how do we know that MaryC isn’t toruturing puppies in her basement?

    WOW, more than one post from Angryflower?! Someone must have hit a nerve!

    True, NC Cop….usually Angryflower doesn’t stick around to debate after trolling in for one quick non-sequitur. But as you can see, AF still hasn’t learned how to follow a link.

    JadeGold:

    The fact is Vitter has based his entire political career on telling others how they should conduct their personal lives.

    His entire career?? Nothing whatsoever about any issues such as tax policy or the WOT? Where’s your proof? Or are you making this up?

    Here’s the salient point, and it goes right back to the subject of ST’s original post: the leftists who are now pointing fingers all said Clinton’s conduct was perfectly fine. On the contrary, ST and those of us on the right say both are wrong?

    Is Vitter a hyprocrite? Possibly – you could make a case for it.

    Is ST a hyprocrite? No way. She – and I join her in this – say both are wrong.

    Are gil, Angryflower, Brian, JadeGold, MaryC, gttim, and the rest of these trolls hypocrites? Unless you can produce some evidence you also condemned Clinton, YES.

    By the way – there’s nothing “progressive” about a political philosophy that punishes people for working hard, wants to surrender national authority to the UN, and sympathizes with islamofascists who subjugate women and murder gays as a matter of public policy. You can try to hide what you really believe by adopting a new term to confuse people, but most of us see you for what you have been and still are.

  55. ST:

    “So the moral of the story is to never trust anyone who talks about how leading a moral life is so rewarding and enriching on many levels? That certainly would be the easy way out, wouldn’t it?”

    PB:

    Wow, that’s an obtuse response.

    No it wasn’t, especially seeing as to what I responded to. Which was:

    eric:

    sister toldjah, the problem here is that these people do not generally confess their sins, they don’t admit to adultery they do not admit to homosexuality, every single one of them say that they are virtuous, and then every now and then you’ll have a vitter be discovered, and I have to think to myself, “How many of them are hypocrites, and how many of them are truely virtuous.”

  56. Excellent point by Ryan:

    Vitter should just take a page out of the Al Gore book

    Let’s take JadeGold’s comment and revise it, just a wee bit:

    The fact is Gore is now basing his entire political career on telling others how they should conduct their personal lives.

    Now, we’ve had numerous threads here about how Gore talks the talk but won’t walk the walk – how he wants you and me to sacrifice our lifestyles but he has no intention of changing his in the least. How many times did we see the current trolls on this thread show up to accuse al-Gore of hyprocrisy? Answer: none.

    Bottom line: the leftists have no problem with hypocrisry per se. They’re enthusiastic practitioners, in fact. Their presence here is evidence of only one thing: they can and will politicize everything and anything if they think it can help them control all our lives.

  57. “But as you can see, AF still hasn’t learned how to follow a link.”

    Do you care to point out wtf you’re talking about? Who drops in for a quick troll you say? Have you read what I put in this thread without having to click a link?

    “Are gil, Angryflower, Brian, JadeGold, MaryC, gttim, and the rest of these trolls hypocrites? Unless you can produce some evidence you also condemned Clinton, YES.”

    Your point therefore is that unless I condemned Clinton, I cannot call Vitter a hypocrite?

    Seriously?

    Becuase Clinton did something amoral, that makes Vitter’s actions with a hooker … which is contrary to his legislative actions and political message .. not hypocritical?

    What are you smoking?

  58. Ryan:

    Ah, so Maher doesn’t count. Got it. I find it humorous that Coulter is brought up on this site, where ST has frequently stated how much she disagrees with things Coulter says. When the answer doesn’t fit your agenda – move the goalposts. Got it.

    So typical, isn’t it? I was thinking about that on my way home.

    So basically the point here is, from those on the left, that if you don’t practice what you preach, you should be ignored. Check. Are you going now ignore pretty much everyone involved in “Live Earth” then?

    Heheh. You’re on a roll :)

    Vitter should just take a page out of the Al Gore book.. Come up with a scheme like “Adultery Offsets” or “Prostitution Offsets.” Then he can purchase them, and feel good about his message despite the fact that he wasn’t living up to it.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see a resignation in the near future.

    NewKevin:

    What, like taking care of the poor? Respecting creation? Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Turning the other cheek? Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us?

    That is today’s right wing in America?!

    You got it! Too bad today’s left can’t claim the same thing.

  59. How many times did we see the current trolls on this thread show up to accuse al-Gore of hyprocrisy? Answer: none.

    Um, yea.

    I wrote “You’ll make the same distinction with Al Gore etc. using any power whatsoever and brand him a massive hypocrite, so why isn’t Vitter?”

    This was the point I made many posts ago – just in case you didn’t see it or can’t read.

  60. No it wasn’t, especially seeing as to what I responded to.

    I was hoping for something a little more intellectually honest than a rush to the extreme edges of Eric’s statement, but I guess a “no it wasn’t/yes it was” argument was easier.

  61. AF:

    If I’m going to make a point it’s that by trying to pin generalities on individual actions, or attributing them to a political side, is beyond pointless.

    You’d have a bit more credibility on the ‘generalities’ point had you not said this in the next sentence:

    Instead of condemning Vitters actions today, a great majority of bloggers are allowing their hatred of all things Clinton to cloud their judgment.

    On to the rest of your comment:

    It’s silly and quite frankly I’m not expecting nor demanding any sort of condemnation anyway. Just don’t try to say that calling Vitter a hypocrite isn’t based in fact.

    I’m sure to some people on the left, their criticism is genuine, but for most, I don’t believe it for a second.

    I get your point, not to be picky but that’s not anywhere near what he actually said.

    Funny how the comment “that’s not exactly what they said” doesn’t apply when something AC, who I am no defender of, is taken out of context. Careful, your selective criticism slip is showing, AF.

    Ann Coulter makes a living out of these sorts of condemnable statements. Bill Maher as well. Michael Moore? I can’t really see many examples of him doing so but I’m sure there’s all kinds of examples on the left.

    It doesn’t matter. We can both dredge up righteous indignation until the cows come home. These people are pundits and entertainers, not legislators.

    It DOES matter, because not only do these people have just as much, if not more influence on the people than legislators themselves, but they also poison the political discourse.

    Or what, you’ll spank me?

    Don’t get your hopes up.

  62. … are supposed to invalidate the message across the board. It doesn’t. It just means there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle on the issue of ‘morality’ who should do a lot better job of practicing what they preach.

    Then perhaps right-wingers could kindly stop acting like they own the Morality Rights to the universe?

    Maybe…not get so hysterical if a liberal or Democrat drives a biggish car or gets an expensive haircut?

    Isn’t going to a prostitute ..or leaving your wife for another woman in a cruel kind of way …just a little bit bigger than those things?

    Okay, then. Could y’all please stop whining after just one day? Damn.

  63. What, like taking care of the poor? What, like taking care of the poor? Respecting creation? Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Turning the other cheek? Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us?

    That is today’s right wing in America?!

    You got it! Too bad today’s left can’t claim the same thing.

    Wow. Just, wow.

    1) taking care of the poor: LINK

    2) respecting creation – Bush EPA Rolls Back Endangered Species Act, Pesticide Protection.

    3) Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? – Indeed, unless they’re a liberal, or an atheist, or god forbid, a muslim.

    4) Turning the other cheek? – Preemptive war.

    5) Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us? – Gay marriage. (empathy) Reason (Kansas)

    What a joke.

  64. Then perhaps right-wingers could kindly stop acting like they own the Morality Rights to the universe?

    You mean like Pelosi promising “The most ethical Congress in history”????

    This, of course, a few months before “Frozen money” Jefferson was indicted.

    I guess both sides do a little moralizing, huh, Miss O?

  65. So the moral of the story is to never trust anyone who talks about how leading a moral life is so rewarding and enriching on many levels? That certainly would be the easy way out, wouldn’t it?

    If that’s the case, then we shouldn’t trust anyone about anything, because just about everyone is a hypocrite about something they say or do.

    Sister Toldjah, the people I trust who talk to me about morality in my life are those that have the right motives. For an example about bad motives, when I go into a car lot and the salesman preaches to me about great his cars are, I don’t trust him, because he has such a great motive to lie. Republicans have too great of an incentive to lie about any moral lapse they have. It’s that motivation to lie about their morality which makes them untrustworthy.

    Now there are people I trust about morality, in regards to issues about prostitution and adultery in a marriage, I trust marriage counselors, because it’s their job to make things work, they know what is right and wrong and they don’t have to lie about their own problems, it’s their job and they do it well. I trust our judges, they have to make difficult ethical decisions every day. I trust my friends, my family and my community when they tell me when I’ve made moral and ethical mistakes in my life.

    Now that I think about it, the people I trust don’t go around preaching about how rewarding it is to lead a moral life, I guess you’re right, I’ve taken the easy way out.

  66. Right, except for the fact that Maher never said he was disappointed that Cheney wasn’t killed in an attack. That’s another of Coulter’s distortions. What he said was, “But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.” An inconvenient truth, huh righties? You’re here crowing about sexual morality. Never mind the tens of thousands of corpses.

  67. I trust our judges, they have to make difficult ethical decisions every day.

    Wow, someone doesn’t deal with the criminal justice system very much.

  68. “I guess both sides do a little moralizing, huh, Miss O?”

    True, but one side is dismantling the Constitution of the United States of America.

  69. Wow. Just, wow.

    1) taking care of the poor: LINK

    2) respecting creation – Bush EPA Rolls Back Endangered Species Act, Pesticide Protection.

    3) Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? – Indeed, unless they’re a liberal, or an atheist, or god forbid, a muslim.

    4) Turning the other cheek? – Preemptive war.

    5) Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us? – Gay marriage. (empathy) Reason (Kansas)

    What a joke.

    taking care of the poor: Indeed, the right does this, especially through the church. The left does this by advocating higher taxes, because they think it’s the gov’t’s lifetime job to take care of the poor.

    respecting creation : Yes, by respecting life at conception, which is the greatest gift to ‘create’ that God gave us.

    Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Yup, unless that person/group has given me some reason to be suspicous and/or untrusting. The left typically only accepts ‘like minded individuals’ in spite of their supposed ‘big tent, all are welcome’ facade.

    Turning the other cheek? Yep, unless we’re backed against the wall and engaging what all humans can and should do instinctively: act in the interest of self-preservation. (aka “self defense). The left’s version of this is, to borrow a phrase, “can’t we all get along?”

    Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us? Indeed, knowing full well that even God’s reason and empathy had limits.

  70. It’s not about the sex. Sex scandals are bad, but they are, at worst, a matter of personal morals and ethics.

    It’s about the prostitution. Which is not merely morally/ethically wrong, but illegal.

    You should be outraged, not apologetic. These views clearly aren’t yours, are they?

    Stop defending someone because they (pretend to) share your values.

  71. True, but one side is dismantling the Constitution of the United States of America.

    You’re right – the left has been doing this for decades. Bravo for pointing that out.

  72. Yes Kevin, but since the conversation was the attempted assassination of Cheney, us “righties” can put two and two together.

    Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

    Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…

    Frank: I think he did.

    Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…

    Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

    Frank: You don’t believe that?

    Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

    Apparently Barney Frank thought he had said it. Or is Barney Frank part of the right wing conspiracy?
    So much for an inconvenient truth, huh?

    Facts can be fun! Try them sometime!

  73. You should do the research before hitting ‘enter.’

    Here’s what Vitter said last year WRT a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

    I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one.

    Not more than Iraq, tax policy, WoT, the price of tea in China.

    Of course, I suppose what Vitter believes and what he practices may be two separate things–given recent events.

  74. True, but one side is dismantling the Constitution of the United States of America.

    So now we’re switching gears from morality to constitutional violations?

    Right out of the lefty playbook.

  75. Now that I think about it, the people I trust don’t go around preaching about how rewarding it is to lead a moral life, I guess you’re right, I’ve taken the easy way out.

    That’s strange, because earlier in your post, you said this:

    Sister Toldjah, the people I trust who talk to me about morality in my life are those that have the right motives.

    So someone’s talking to you about morality, then, aren’t they?

    The best thing you can do if you are a person of good morals is to lead by example more by word (and obviously there are people like Vitter who fail to do either), but if you’re in a position of leadership, whether it be politics, the church or something of that nature, naturally you’re going to have people base some of their support on you on whether or not you live and approve of that kind of life.

    Of course politicans are going to talk about morals, and moreso preachers, because the Bible is all about morality and doing what’s right by God. So it is not wrong for people to preach about the benefits of a moral lifestyle. And I don’t just mean in the pulpit or on the floor of Congress or in an op/ed, but I mean via friendship – like counseling a friend who has a drug or drinking issue, or trying to talk someone out of doing something they shouldn’t do.

    There seems to be this subcontext of “morals=bad” whenever the discussion of morals pops up, when in actuality morals in general are good things (that should go without saying, but …). For example: It’s moral to be courteous to the elderly, it’s moral to alert a cashier as to when she’s given too much change, things like that. We come into situations almost constantly that cause us to act based on morals.

    It’s certain morals (like the sanctity and definition of marriage, for example) that, for some odd reason, get the right and left at odds with each other. But again, morals, in general, shouldn’t be equated to ‘evil’ or ‘bad.’

  76. I think what’s being missed here is the fact that most, if not all of us here on this site on the conservative side of the issue are upset with this guy. I’m sure you’ll see a resignation soon, and we won’t cry about that. Good riddance.

    What you on the left, or “progressive” side as you like to call yourselves, should be doing is calling for him to not resign if it comes to that. You should be defending him – keep him in office along with ol’ Ted Kennedy. I’m sure both of them can have a few drinks, woo the young ladies, and perhaps teach swimming lessons together.

  77. taking care of the poor: Indeed, the right does this, especially through the church. The left does this by advocating higher taxes, because they think it’s the gov’t’s lifetime job to take care of the poor.

    The left does it through the church as well. I should know.

    I think you mistake what the left sees as the fairest way to ensure our streets aren’t lined with poor people as theft. In the end it’s everyone’s problem.

    respecting creation : Yes, by respecting life at conception, which is the greatest gift to ‘create’ that God gave us.

    I’m not even going to touch that one. I think it’s wrong to assume every abortion is an easy or politically motivated decision though.

    Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Yup, unless that person/group has given me some reason to be suspicous and/or untrusting. The left typically only accepts ‘like minded individuals’ in spite of their supposed ‘big tent, all are welcome’ facade.

    That’s specious in that only people who identify with lockstep ideology end up being vocal about it.

    Both sides accept only those who agree, that’s the whole point of partisanship. And I thought the GOP was the big tent party? LINK

    Google GOP and big tent. I think thats both sides really.

    Turning the other cheek? Yep, unless we’re backed against the wall and engaging what all humans can and should do instinctively: act in the interest of self-preservation. (aka “self defense). The left’s version of this is, to borrow a phrase, “can’t we all get along?”

    Diplomacy vs. Force. There’s a time and place for both, and democracy is about figuring out which one applies. The whole idea of a free country is arguing over these.

    Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us? Indeed, knowing full well that even God’s reason and empathy had limits.

    Based on literal scripture? Who does that apply to in a free country?

  78. This was the point I made many posts ago – just in case you didn’t see it or can’t read.

    I can assure you with 100% certainty that Great White Rat is one of the most well-read, intelligent people who visits this blog.

    And BTW, his point was part of a larger one, so whether or not you mentioned part of it in passing earlier really is irrelevant.

  79. Didn’t need the transcript NC Cop, I have the episode recorded. Another reason I didn’t need the transcript is that what it shows is that, oh heck, why don’t I just quote my previous post, “that Maher never said he was disappointed that Cheney wasn’t killed in an attack.” Whereas Coulter has repeatedly and specifically wished liberals killed on record.

  80. I think what’s being missed here is the fact that most, if not all of us here on this site on the conservative side of the issue are upset with this guy.

    A fact that seems to be sorely missed. This guy deserves everything he gets and if he does resign, as I think he should, you are right that I won’t lose any sleep over it. He’s trash.

  81. Sister Toldjah wrote:

    “The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life – they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.”

    Which morality? Prodestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist? Morality is not a monolithic concept.

  82. “So now we’re switching gears from morality to constitutional violations?

    Right out of the lefty playbook.

    LOL …”

    It is hysterical isn’t it? It’s a real laugh how everything this country was founded on and has bled for is being spat at by this administration, but their precious 29% refuse to see any wrong in it all because they’re so deluded by the “moral” facade.

  83. Lorica.

    Dear, you need to at least inform yourself before you comment. Is that too much to ask.

    “Whem did he lied under oath”
    “How can I prove that he lied”

    The man was going to go straight to jail for approximately three years. He was tried by a jury and found GUILTY OF LYING UNDER OATH. He was sentenced by a Republican Conservative appointed Judge. The Judge was appointed by Regan and promoted by Bush by the way.

    How can I prove that he lied?….. Ask the Jury and the Judge that sentenced him. I think that’s the way our legal system works is it not?

    Now with the comments you made about Libby you just demonstrate you simply have no idea what on hearth you are talkimg about. What difference does it make if he was not the first man to talk to Novak? He was tried for LYING UNDER OATH IN A FEDERAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION….. See the difference???? If you don’t try to lie to a Federal Grand Jury and find out.

    Clinton was not going to be impeached for having sex in the Oval Office, he was going to be impeached for LYING UNDER OATH.

    I am not defending Clinton, I am just pointing out the inconsistency of reasoning on your part, and that of the Right. If you were after Clinton for lying under oath, why not Libby?

    I do consider a courtesy to other blogers to at least take some time to learn before I comment. You apparently just put wherever comes to your mind, and then pretend that you are correct.

    That is some strange behavior.

  84. And I don’t recall ever saying that I liked what Coulter said. I used to agree with alot of what she said, but when she started talking about people being killed and Al Qaeda bombing NY Times, I don’t care about anything she has to say.

    However, if you think that what Maher was displaying was not disappointment you’re kidding yourself. I noticed you didn’t reply to the fact that Barney Frank thought he was disappointed and said so in the transcript.

  85. NC Cop:

    I mentioned that earlier. It’s funny that some have brought up Coulter on this site. ST and many others on here have been extremely critical of Ann. To put it simply, this is not an Ann Coulter-friendly site.

  86. I had to cut and paste this from upthread.
    [my comments are in brackets]
    This is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever written.

    “LOL When did Libby lie under oath??? Who is able to prove he lied?? [prosecuter , jury, guilty on all 4 counts, are you joking? seriously! You can’t be this stupid, or can you?] .His story didn’t correspond with Tim Russert’s after an 8 hour grilling, so Russert is the absolute gospel truth? Whatever. [I know baby, the legal system can be so whatever!] The reasons Libby was being hounded is because of some stupidly false notion about getting Cheney, and because Libby was on the case for Marc Rich against Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald wanted revenge. [HUH?] Tell me gil, since Richard Armatage is the real leaker, and Fitzgerald knew that, why is Libby being prosecuted?? [Lorica cannot count to two. There can be more than one leaker. In Lorica’s world there is no such thing as gangs because because people are unable to conspire] This man should serve as much time as your boy Clinton served. [Clinton was never charged or convicted nor did he technically commit perjury.(I can get into why if anyone cares but it will take a few paragraphs) I am sure you were outraged by the whole impeachment thing though Lorica or must people ONLY be honest about extramarital blowjobs? Vitter I believe had regular intercourse in the missionary position with a prostitute and not aaan intern so that don’t count or something.]

    Also, Thank you for proving my point. You are still defending Clinton because he only “lied about sex”. It was still perjury. [Not necessarily but I am confused. Are you pro perjury or anti?] As I asked earlier, when they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, [They did stooooooopid] then let Libby serve his time, but since Armitage was the leaker, not the President or the Vice President, your point is ridiculous at best. – Lorica”

    Lorica, to paraphrase Mark Twain, it is better to not comment and appear a fool, then to comment and remove all doubt.

  87. The left does it through the church as well. I should know.

    I’m sure they do, but they also believe that ultimately it’s the government’s job to subsidize the poor, because they don’t believe in the inherent good of individuals to do it. They have to be forced to via taxes.

    I think you mistake what the left sees as the fairest way to ensure our streets aren’t lined with poor people as theft. In the end it’s everyone’s problem.

    Um, long before ‘welfare’ type programs were established, the poor managed to survive, partly because of help by others, and partly because the knew they couldn’t depend on a handout from the federal gov’t.

    And what exactly is ‘fair’ about the government taking my money and giving it to someone else, without any say so from me?

    I’m not even going to touch that one. I think it’s wrong to assume every abortion is an easy or politically motivated decision though.

    You’re not going to touch it because you know it’s true.

    Me:

    Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Yup, unless that person/group has given me some reason to be suspicous and/or untrusting. The left typically only accepts ‘like minded individuals’ in spite of their supposed ‘big tent, all are welcome’ facade.

    You:

    That’s specious in that only people who identify with lockstep ideology end up being vocal about it.

    Come again?

    Both sides accept only those who agree, that’s the whole point of partisanship. And I thought the GOP was the big tent party? LINK

    Google GOP and big tent. I think thats both sides really.

    I don’t. It’s the left who historically has claimed that they are ‘all-inclusive’ when in fact they aren’t. Recent history shows that some on the right attempt to make the claim but only because they’ve learned from the left that it will get them votes.

    Diplomacy vs. Force. There’s a time and place for both, and democracy is about figuring out which one applies. The whole idea of a free country is arguing over these.

    Which doesn’t refute my “turn the other cheek” response in the least.

    Me:

    Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us? Indeed, knowing full well that even God’s reason and empathy had limits.

    You:

    Based on literal scripture? Who does that apply to in a free country?

    Moving the goalposts again? The context of our discussion on this point is about average Joes, not politicians. And remember, it’s one of your fellow lefties who mentioned the bit about God and empathy and reason, not me. So you might want to ask your question of him/her.

  88. “I’m sure both of them can have a few drinks, woo the young ladies, and perhaps teach swimming lessons together.”

    Afterwards they can hook up with the First Lady and talk about demolition derbys and DUI’s. Or just the president and DUI’s – he didn’t kill anyone though.

  89. Afterwards they can hook up with the First Lady and talk about demolition derbys and DUI’s. Or just the president and DUI’s – he didn’t kill anyone though.

    That’s it, AF. I’ve had enough.

  90. Apparently Barney Frank thought he had said it. Or is Barney Frank part of the right wing conspiracy?
    So much for an inconvenient truth, huh?

    Facts can be fun! Try them sometime!

    Thanks for the transcript, NC.

    What was even more chilling than Maher’s comment was the applause his audience gave to it.

  91. You’re outta here, too, which should give you and AF both plenty of time to giggle about what a vicious ‘killer’ Laura Bush is. Buhbye. —

  92. Ah, so Maher doesn’t count.

    No he doesn’t.

    #1 He is a comedian (not a politician as I mis-typed). Coulter is a paid political commentator on TV and in print. Maher is a comedian. Can you see the difference.

    #2 He has never said that somebody should die, like Coulter has. He has never said somebody should bomb the Fox News studio, like Coulter did on the NYTs. He has never suggested killing Federal Judges like Coulter has.

    Suggesting that Maher is a paid political pundit is like suggesting Dennis Miller is. Miller is a very unfunny comedian, and had been sucking at the right wings teat, but he is not a political pundit.

    Again, just show me quotes where lefty commentators on TV, radio, or in print that have suggested any of the stuff Coulter has. (I’ll give you a little hint, if they had it would be all over the media- all of which is owned by conservative corporations- so it would not be hard to find.)

    Please, just show me the quotes. It is very simple. Show the quotes and you win. Please no spinning, just cut and paste the quotes.

    And if you want to talk about morals, I can cut and paste hundreds of elected Republican officials, Republican campaign officials and Republican religious leaders who have been involved in sex scandals. The list is long, but certainly not exhaustive. Conservatives have to go back 30+ years to get less than half a dozen Democrats. (And you can even put Clinton down as #1 if it makes you feel good)

  93. Amazing, just amazing, how much heat and drivel the left comes up with, as evidenced by this post, how much faux outrage and indignation when a Republican gets caught in a sexual peccadillo, but when Clinton does the same it’s “just sex” they whine. The hypocrisy displayed on this thread by the usual suspects, leftists, is just staggering. As noted we conservatives won’t shed a tear when he goes and resigns, thinking we’re better off without him, whereas liberals and Democrats enshrine their bad apples, re Kennedy, aka “the swimmer.”

    In other news, did you know Monica Lewinski just turned 31?

    It seems just like yesterday she was crawling around the Oval Office on her hands and knees putting everything in her mouth.

    They grow up so fast don’t they?

  94. Great white rat.

    You ask me what is my point when I posted;

    ” Clinton lied about sex and was impeached by people like you. At the time it was said by the Right that it was not because of the sex (sex is not a crime) , but because he lied under oath”

    First of all I brought Clinton up in response of a post by Lorica making reference to Clinton’s sex scandal, and how the Democrats defended Clinton because he was lying about sex.

    As you might recall (I hope) just as the Democrats defended Clinton, the Republicans wanted to impeach him for LYING UNDER OATH.

    So that brings me to Libby….. And Hypocrisy.

    It would be nice if the same Republican Right Wingers that were so enraged about Clinton lying under oath would do the same now when Libby’s name come up, but unfortunately for their credibility they do not. It would also be nice to see the Democrats that defended Clinton back then be defending Libby now.

    Don’t hold your breath.

    And that takes me to my point. When a rational person believes in something TRULY, you don’t change what you believe in or justify it because he/she happens to be a Republican or a Democrat. I for one consider myself an American, And I believe lying under oath to a Grand Jury, or any jury is flat out wrong period.

    If Clinton did it he needed to be tried on the merits, and found guilty or inocent AFTER HIS TERM AS PRESIDENT. Did he deserve to be impeached? that’s above my pay grade to judge. The same standar applies to Libby. Why do I believe that Clinton needed to be tried after serving as our President? Because America comes first. The spectacle of an impeachment would have only divided us to the extreme, while paralising the entire Federal Government for years. It would have been a bonanza maibe for a bunch of partisan hacks (Maher, Culter, etc), but no true American can believe that any good would come out of an impeachment over a lie over sex in the Oval Office.

    By the way the reason given by Ford in pardoning Nixon was exactly the same one, that is to say that he was not willing to put the entire nation on hold for years and bitterly divide us even more than we already were at the time…… FORD WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

    As for Libby, He was found guilty, he was given a sentance ….. end of story that’s the way our legal system, and our Democracy is supposed to function. Now Partisans believe it should only function when is one of their guys on the chair??? OK, I have news for them ….. THEY ARE FLAT OUT WRONG.

    And that’s my point.

  95. I’ll give you a little hint, if they had it would be all over the media- all of which is owned by conservative corporations- so it would not be hard to find.

    LOL! Right, because all of the media outlets are so conservative!!!! Thanks man, that’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while.

  96. S.Toldjah writes: “It apparently happened several years ago, he’s apologized to his wife and asked for forgiveness from God, but the beat goes on.”

    ST seems to be in a forgiving mood – Vitter should answer to his wife and his god, and it would be impertinent to demand more of the him than that.

    Why no mention of the fact that the Sen. may have been involved in a crime? A crime for which someone else may take the rap.

    It would appear that ST sees prostitution as no worse than adultery. (check out her “Clinton did it too” defense: “BS. If you guys found stuff like this ‘truly revolting’ then you wouldn’t have rallied around to President Clinton’s defense the numerous times it was alleged that he, um, strayed from his wife (to put it mildly).”

    Now perhaps the good sister really believes that prostitution should be no more criminalized than adultery is. It would demonstrate the strength of her moral convictions if she would state her prostitution-tolerant policy more openly, though.

    If, however, she thinks that prostitution is much worse than adultery – so much worse that it deserves to be criminalized – we should be shocked to see her trivialize Vitter’s apparent lawbreaking. It is examples such as this which make many cynical of her claims (and the claims of “values” Conversatives) to moral rigor.

  97. Or just the president and DUI’s – he didn’t kill anyone though.

    No, that title belongs to Sen. Kennedy.

    Buh bye, Angryflower, I shall truly miss you.

  98. It is hysterical isn’t it? It’s a real laugh how everything this country was founded on and has bled for is being spat at by this administration, but their precious 29% refuse to see any wrong in it all because they’re so deluded by the “moral” facade.

    Wow, what a great speech! Care to back any of that up? Before you trash the 29% that support the Pres. you would be well advised to remember that the approval rating of the DEMOCRAT led Congress is even lower. Are they spitting on everything this country has bled for, too? According to the pols they are.

  99. NC Cop

    Indeed the Democrats have I believe a 14% approval rating. You know NC that translates to a hell of a lot of angry DEMOCRATS.

    You want to know why they are angry??

    Because the Democrats in Congress are not going after Bush and his debacle in Iraq.

    As for Bush in the 20’s let’s just say that he is really going after the the trophy as the worst of all time.

    The war NC is what is giving all these politicians such bad ratings. That and the fact that they behave kind of like we all…. All talk and no action. Differeence is that this is a blog, and you can talk. The politicians in Washington get paid… To go B.S, and accomplish nothing.

    Bad ratings indeed. I will give you this prediction tough. If the Republicans continue to support Bush’s policies in Iraq in 08…. There will be no Republican Party in 09.

    Friendly advice from some one in the Center fed up with partisans, and incompetents fighting civil wars with troops on their fourth rotation.

  100. As for Bush in the 20’s let’s just say that he is really going after the the trophy as the worst of all time.

    You have to be careful about declaring someone the worst of all time, history has a strange way of judging people. It seems that not too long ago many of the dems bailing out on Iraq were the ones cheering the beginning of it, including Hill and Bill Clinton. I have more respect for a man who will do what he believe is right rather than what will make him popular.

    Public opinion is a funny thing, though. I don’t think many Americans have all the facts on Iraq, much less the correct facts. Polls have also shown that most Americans do not believe they are getting accurate reporting from Iraq, yet it seems they turn around and use that inaccurate reporting to from an opinion. Doesn’t seem right, does it?

    I do believe that you are center of the road though, gil, you have been consistently critical of both sides, and I respect that. I do have a problem with the Clinton defenders up on a soapbox now, that’s all.

  101. Severian wrote:

    “Yeah, easily, Coulter is actually funny.”

    Totally. Joking about blowing up the NY Times is the height of wit. Why, she’s practically the Voltaire of the 21st Century!

  102. This is all about the left getting in another dig at the morality crowd in general – whether they happen to be hypocrites are not. Morals? What’s that?

    Exactly!!! My whole point is those that were bodyshields for Bill, really shouldn’t be the executors of Vitter. I am not defending his behavior in any way. I despise his behavior.

    gttim, I just looked thru the headlines of the Lousiana weekly for 2001, 2002 & 2003, and I did not see Vitter’s name in a single headline. If you wish to actually provide some evidence of the allegations you are charging here is the link for you.

    LINK

    How can I prove that he lied?….. Ask the Jury and the Judge that sentenced him. I think that’s the way our legal system works is it not?

    Our legal system is a jury of his peers, which in Washington DC, you will never find a jury of 12 Republican Conservatives. The majority of his jury was Democrats. Libby was found guilty in a He said / He said situation and his story just didn’t quite line up with Tim Russert’s. Where is his accussor, where is the evidence against him. Also Fiztgerald clearly was looking to find a link to Cheney and that is why he attacked Libby so passionately, yet ignored Armatage. Also, for all the extremely informed, Libby was found guilty of perjury, not leaking, so the whole “there could be 2 leakers” logic, just doesn’t line up with reality.

    Lorica, to paraphrase Mark Twain, it is better to not comment and appear a fool, then to comment and remove all doubt.

    Coming from an idiot who got himself banned for being a child. =)) I suggest you take your own advice son.

    This discussion has really taken more time out of my life that I care to give it. As I said before, Clinton perjured by his own admission and so many on the left were willing to take a bullet for him. Now the tables are turned, and Vitter is the adulterer, and so many on the left want to string him up. Good One!!

    Lastly for all you geniuses out there, Lorica is the breastplate in a Knight’s armour, and I am a guy, so please stop calling me sweetie, and dear, you won’t win any points, and I am not about to start kissing you. /hugs :o) – Lorica

  103. Lastly for all you geniuses out there, Lorica is the breastplate in a Knight’s armour, and I am a guy, so please stop calling me sweetie, and dear, you won’t win any points, and I am not about to start kissing you.

    Heheh – and per you, I’m the only one around here who gets called “dear” anyway ;)

  104. NC Cop

    Fair enough.

    When it comes to Bush, History will judge his Presidency on Iraq. He has two more years to pull this out. That will give him almost six years trying to resolve the mess Iraq is.

    I do believe Bush is a man of principle that right or worng truly believes in his vision of Iraq. For all our sakes I sincerely hope that in the end he is proven right, and his detractors wrong.

    As Americans how can we want otherwise?

    The Networks don’t enphasize the positives, the good things going on, the fact that Al Quaida is on the run in several Iraqi provinces going instead for the easy headline and what gives them the ratings…. Blood, and dead, and bad news. But in the end is not us Americans or our news, or even Bush that will decide if we stay or go or if we loose or win. Is the Iraqi people, because is their country, or their mess…. Is their call.

    As for Bush, Sadly he is running out of time. The American’s people patience is not infinite, and I for one understand that. Rightly or wronlgy depending in your support or lack of it for this war, all wars most end. Our troops as far as I am concerned have done so much more than enough…. I am so profundly proud of them. A lot of them are in their third or even fourth deployment and still committed, and still proud !!!

    Some people say “We will loose if we abandon Iraq” Loose? I ask. Our troops have done everithing we have ask from them, and have been back for more…. Our soldiers will not loose this war if called back, because you don’t loose when you have done your duty. And boy have their done their duty!!!! And besides no one is abandoning Iraq even in the worst scenario. That the Liberals want it is one thing, that they are going to get it is another. If we live Iraq, we would have to be back the next day to stop the war from going Regional so let’s get real. We can’t however stay indefinitely and therefore a new plan that adresses the need to stay, but in a different role is absolutely needed.

    Once 08 comes around Politics comes before patriotism. And politics dictates that Republican Senators and Congressman with hard, competititve races to run simply abandon Bush for their political lives. At that point in time, Bush better have some way out, or the victory he has been talking about for years now, becuse if he does not he will in my humble opinion be rememebered as one of the worst.

    In the long lens of History Presidents are never judged by the polls they held at the time, but by the momentous desicion they took, and how those desicions withstand the test of time. Iraq I am sorry to say, does not look as one of the momentous desicions that will turn out to good with time.

    But believe mr when I say that I do hope very much I am wrong. For if I am right, America will have to suffer the consecuences long after Bush is gone.

  105. Things people say (from AP):
    The wife of Louisiana Senator David Vitter is apparently more forgiving than she once let on.

    Vitter’s phone number has turned up on a list kept by the so-called “DC Madam,” who’s accused of running a prostitution ring. Vitter says the phone records are from before he ran for the Senate. And in a statement, he says he’s made peace with his wife, and with God. He said he’s sorry for a “serious sin.”

    He may have reason to be grateful for his wife’s forgiveness, judging from comments she made seven years ago. Back then, Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News Service she could not be as forgiving as Hillary Rodham Clinton or the wife of Republican Congressman Robert Livingston, who admitted to extramarital affairs and quit Congress.

    Vitter instead said she was “a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt,” who drew worldwide attention after she cut off her husband’s penis in 1993.

    Question is, is Vitter still a ‘man’?

  106. Lorica.

    Look ovbiously you are either obsessed with Party politics, or you simply can’t conceive that a person can think for him or herself.

    I do give Juries more credit that you do. And I also most remind you that a Juror has to be approved by the defense before acting as a juror. I also (again) have to point out to you that the Prosecution was conducted by a Republican (Fitzgerald) appointed by a Republican Justice Department (Gonzalez), and precided by a Republican judge. None of these Republicans had a problem with the legality of the proceedings, or the Jurors Party affiliation.

    Now I don’t know if the jury was Republican or not but that is really not of our business is it?????
    What it is of our business is that Libby was found guilty, and given a sentance.

    Now you can of course say that you don’t agree with the veredict, but what you can’t say is that the guy was not lying under oath, because he was found guilty and CONVICTED. In our country (thank God) we don’t get to choose our veredicts you know. Also you can believe that lying under oath is not an offense that should be prosecuted, but you can’t say that rational only applies to Libby and not Clinton, and not expect not to be called a hypocrite.

  107. Um, long before ‘welfare’ type programs were established, the poor managed to survive, partly because of help by others, and partly because the knew they couldn’t depend on a handout from the federal gov’t.

    Exactly. That’s why Charles Dickens wrote books about the wonderful living conditions of the poor. Before the New Deal came along, hardly anyone starved, or worked in horrible conditions for low wages. At least, that’s the way it is in the minds of conservatives.

    I’m sure they do, but they also believe that ultimately it’s the government’s job to subsidize the poor, because they don’t believe in the inherent good of individuals to do it. They have to be forced to via taxes.

    No, it’s the job of society to maintain a safety net for the poor, and the government is the means through which society deals with collective issues.

    That’s not to say that liberals see government as the only means to solutions–I see examples all the time wherre people solved problems on their own without the government, and liberals tend to applaud those efforts. One example is the Casual Car Pool in the Bay Area, which was a response to a transit strike a number of years ago, and it still exists.

  108. Exactly. That’s why Charles Dickens wrote books about the wonderful living conditions of the poor. Before the New Deal came along, hardly anyone starved, or worked in horrible conditions for low wages. At least, that’s the way it is in the minds of conservatives.

    That’s a strawman. I didn’t claim that no one who was poor suffered, just that the poor had a lot more get up and go (and encouragement to do so) back in those days that they do now.

    Try arguing against what I said next time, and not what you think I said.

  109. “whereas liberals and Democrats enshrine their bad apples,”

    Er… ever heard of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Severian?

    “Coulter is actually funny.”

    That’s right, one of the golden rules of comedy going back to Aristotle is, “defend the ultra-powerful.”

    You all know exactly what’s happening. The dozens and dozens of lies, crimes and abuses of power of this administration are slowly but surely being irrefutably proven. They’re being fairly and fully researched, fact-checked–and on those extremely rare occasions that justice slips through the cracks–tried before a jury. Historians will look back at the offenses of Bill Clinton as being nowhere in the ballpark of those of the butchers of our democracy in office now. Their rightful place is in prison. But if they ever actually ended up there, I’m sure there would still be deluded cultists convinced that the GOP can ultimately do no wrong because it is the living body of Christ. Not the one who was a radically liberal rabbi in the 1st century, but some other fantasy figure, like “wise,” “courageous,” “compassionate” Bush.

  110. That’s a strawman. I didn’t claim that no one who was poor suffered, just that the poor had a lot more get up and go (and encouragement to do so) back in those days that they do now.

    But Dickens didn’t write his novels about the tough life of poor people because there were a few of them here and there, he wrote about it because it was widespread.

    As for the apparent criminal Senator, he’s certainly lost his standing to decry the illegal status of some immigrants. It’s also interesting how conservatives have tepidly denounced him, without pointing out that his behavior was very likely illegal. There’s also credible evidence that he engaged in similar illegal activity in the late 1990s.

  111. Yeah, right kevin, “proven.” ROFL. Endless investigations and you’ve turned up nothing but innuendo and nothing else. OTOH, you enshrine serial liars like Joe Wilson as heroes. Sooner or later the Dems are going to have to realize that being “against Bush” isn’t going to work after he is out of office. They may think that endless fishing expeditions trying to dredge up any shred of malfeasance to throw a bone to their nutroots base, such as yourself, maybe be a good “policy” but what are they going to do after that? Continuing to attempt to investigate up a scandal after the Bush presidency is over ain’t going to cut it. It’s a pretty piss poor excuse for actually having any ideas they want to try and implement now, it’ll be even more pathetic in a year and a half.

    Seems to me y’all are awfully big on opinion and outrage, but measurably less at real facts. BDS is an amazing thing to watch, in saner times the types of behavior so common on the left today would have been grounds for institutionalization.

  112. Before anyone gets too touchy feely about the New Deal, the New Deal guaranteed one thing, and that was perpetual Depression. The only thing that managed to pull the US out of the Depression was WWII, and the fact that FDR died before the end of it. His ill thought out and cavalier approach to the economy and markets kept the country in the Depression longer than it ever should have been or would have been with more enlightened economic policies. FDR was a tin pot dictator who tried to pack the Supreme Court to allow him to do whatever unconstitutional things floated his fancy, thankfully he failed in that little outrage.

  113. Look ovbiously you are either obsessed with Party politics, or you simply can’t conceive that a person can think for him or herself.

    ROFL! That’s rich coming from a liberal. I swear, you all must share the same hive mind, I don’t see a single original thought or viewpoint out of the lot of you ever. It’s all rehashed DU talking points, BDS rage, and the same dishonest memes that get circulated by every single flaming lib that comes through here. Identical twins are further apart than the average two liberals. Pod people the lot of you.

  114. Another great speech Kev!! Perhaps now you will give us the evidence of the “dozens of lies, crimes, and abuses” that you speak of?

    And if tomorrow they found stockpiles of WMD’s in Iraq, if tomorrow they showed how the wiretapping program had saved the lives of thousands, and if tomorrow it was proven that the war in Iraq completely eradicated Al Qaeda, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to people like you Kevin, so what difference does it make. Your hatred started when your hero Al Gore lost to Pres. Bush and it has grown exponentially since. People like you are so angry and bitter at your loss in 2000 and 2004 that facts are completely wasted on you.

    I certainly do not think that the GOP can do no wrong, but I also don’t think that everything they do is wrong, like you.

    I’ll pray for you, brother.

  115. If being angry at Bush for starting a seemingly endless war in the Mideast based on false pretenses means that I’m crazy, well then, I guess you can lock me in a padded cell and throw away the key.

  116. But Dickens didn’t write his novels about the tough life of poor people because there were a few of them here and there, he wrote about it because it was widespread.

    WADR, I don’t really care what Dickens wrote about or why. My point, which is that pre-welfare age, the poor depended more on the kindness of family, friends, the church, and strangers, as well as picked themselves up by their own bootstraps rather than waiting for a handout from the feds, stands, as this article indicates:

    It is indeed true that when measured in dollar amounts, the combined efforts of traditional charities at the turn of the last century, such as the Salvation Army, were small when compared to those of the modern welfare state. The chief problem with such an approach is that it entirely misses the point. It fails to come to grips, for example, with the fact that before the rise of the welfare state, Americans of all classes shared a deep aversion to dependence on either private organized charity or governmental relief. Indeed, there was a great stigma in the folk culture attached to any form of what might be called hierarchical relief (relief in which those who control the purse strings are higher on the socio-economic scale than the recipients).

    While most Americans at the time conceded that such agencies performed necessary and positive functions, even the poorest of the poor regarded them as a last resort and then only a temporary one. As a result, the size of the dependent population remained infinitesimal by today’s standards. According to a study by the U.S. Census in 1905, only 1 out of every 150 Americans (excluding prisoners) resided in a public or private institution of any kind, including almshouses, asylums, orphanages, and hospitals.

    The numbers of Americans dependent on relief were also small. As late as 1931, about 93,000 families received mothers’ pensions, the state-funded antecedents to AFDC. By comparison, the current AFDC caseload includes 4.6 million parents.

    Paradoxically, this rise in the welfare rolls has occurred despite a massive decline in poverty rates since the earls’ twentieth century. This raises an obvious question: How were Americans once able to avoid such dependence? Part of the answer is that they could fall back on a wide diversity of self-help and mutual-aid arrangements, most of which no longer exist.

  117. If being angry at Bush for starting a seemingly endless war in the Mideast based on false pretenses means that I’m crazy, well then, I guess you can lock me in a padded cell and throw away the key.

    Another favorite argument of mine. Do tell, what false pretenses do you speak of? Also, do you harbor any anger at the many democrats who voted for this war and defended it, up until it began to cost them their jobs, or do they get a pass?

  118. Wow!!! Severian .

    Where did you learn your history about FDR?

    I don’t recall your allegations in my history classes, but who knows, maibe my History teacher was a Liberal in disguise.

  119. Time for me to log off for the evening.

    Note for newbies: Any comments from you will not show up until I log in in the morning, as first time commenters are on moderation until I post their first comment. Even then, some may stay on moderation for a few days at my discretion. Some legit comments may get stuck in moderation as well, seeing as I had to add a few choice words and partial words to my moderation que today, due to the volume of new posts.

    See ya’ll in the a.m.

  120. Severian.

    So you think I am a Liberal.

    Say, is that what you call every one that does not agree with you?

    Frankly Severian I could care less what you call me. I am what I am.

    I respect your ideas, altough most times I do have a very, very hard time trying to follow your logic. I guess you really are a Republican from the Right correct?

    So let me ask you a question.

    I’ll keep it simple

    If I am against abortion
    I am for less taxation
    I am for fiscal responsibility
    I am for less intervention from Government
    I am for Immigration Reform

    BUT

    I have very serious doubts about the Iraq war. How it was started, how it has been conducted, and how our troops have been used.

    I don’t like what this Administration has done to our image around the world.

    I don’t like the almost pathological inclination by this Administration for secrecy. This is a Democracy you know.

    I do have problems with double standards by partisans. How Partisanship taken to the extreme is affecting our Democracy.

    I do have problems with Lobbist’s power in Washington.

    I do believe that something has to be done about our Health Care System

    Now, what does that make me?

    A Liberal? Funny, I tough Liberals were for Abortion for starters. Buy what do I know.

  121. Severian’s view of FDR is identical to the opinion of the American poet Ezra Pound. You could look it up. (But you won’t like it.)

  122. Do tell, what false pretenses do you speak of?

    Let’s see, the main false pretense was that Iraq had ongoing programs to build nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. You do remember those claims, don’t you? Do you remember how the right made fun of Hans Blix, saying he couldn’t find anything if it was right in front of his nose. Funny, our troops also couldn’t find evidence of a weapons program. I believe it was Donald Rumsfeld who said that we even knew where the weapons were.

    Administration officials were claiming that our troops would be in Iraq for only a short amount of time. How’d that work out?

    There were also numerous insinuations that Iraq was involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001. They were so successful that even now, polls show tht a majority of Americans think that Iraq was involved in the attacks.

    Also, do you harbor any anger at the many democrats who voted for this war and defended it, up until it began to cost them their jobs, or do they get a pass?

    No, they don’t get a pass. They should have known better, and they should have already been wary of this administration. Administration claims about Iraqi weapons programs had already been debunked–those of us who read lefty websites knew this. They should have had the courage to stand up to this administration.

    ST, I’ll have to get back to you later–I’ll need to do some research.

  123. Regarding Vitter. Look – I don’t think that anyone on either side of the aisle thinks that maintaining a strong family isn’t a good thing.

    But the difference is that this guy and the party he stands for believes he can shove it down everyone’s throat and make them swallow – while proving he can’t even handle it himself. Republicans generally believe you can and should try to dictate morality. Democrats don’t. So yes, that makes Vitter a hypocrite. Deal with it. And stop trying to impose your sense of morality on people who don’t necessarily share your views.

  124. Look ovbiously you are either obsessed with Party politics, or you simply can’t conceive that a person can think for him or herself.

    LOL :) gil you know so little it truly is shocking. The defense only gets 12 rejects then they have to take what comes. According to Libby’s lawyer, he ran out of rejects in the 1st 15 jurors, the prosecution loaded up on liberals and Libby was screwed. Come on guy it is Washington DC, where even the impartial lean 45 degrees left. LOL :) Too funny :) Night all :) It is time for me to go to bed, and This thread has become ludicrous. – Lorica

  125. gil:

    And that takes me to my point. When a rational person believes in something TRULY, you don’t change what you believe in or justify it because he/she happens to be a Republican or a Democrat. I for one consider myself an American, And I believe lying under oath to a Grand Jury, or any jury is flat out wrong period.

    You actually make a valid point here. I agree.

    The problem was that it comes in a thread about Vitter’s indiscretions, so the logical inference is that you were making the analogy between Clinton and Vitter.

    Since we’ve diverted off the Vitter story to Libby vs. Clinton, since both have been found guilty of lying under oath, would you accept that Libby should have received no more of a penalty than Clinton did – a suspension of the law license? Or should Clinton have received the same fine Libby did (I’m not suggesting jail for Clinton since the commutation of the sentence makes it a moot point)?

  126. AF, missing the entire point as always:

    “But as you can see, AF still hasn’t learned how to follow a link.”

    Do you care to point out wtf you’re talking about? Who drops in for a quick troll you say? Have you read what I put in this thread without having to click a link?

    Well, you clearly didn’t follow the links ST gave you. Otherwise you wouldn’t have said anything as silly as “Cool, you cited yourself.” You’d have gone to the items linked within those posts and read the actual information.


    “Are gil, Angryflower, Brian, JadeGold, MaryC, gttim, and the rest of these trolls hypocrites? Unless you can produce some evidence you also condemned Clinton, YES.”

    Your point therefore is that unless I condemned Clinton, I cannot call Vitter a hypocrite?

    Seriously?

    Becuase Clinton did something amoral, that makes Vitter’s actions with a hooker … which is contrary to his legislative actions and political message .. not hypocritical?

    Reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, is it? What I said was if you condemn Vitter while making excuses for Clinton, you and your ilk are hypocrites.

    Go back and read the original post on this thread. I challenge you to find one person who is defending what Vitter did. ST isn’t. I’m not. NC Cop isn’t. Ryan isn’t. Lorica isn’t. Severian isn’t. Now contrast that with the lot of you excusing Clinton. THAT’s the point. Even YOU should be able to understand that.

  127. It’s clear that Bill Clinton lied under oath, which is a bad thing. No question.

    It’s less clear that he committed perjury. Not all lying under oath is perjury–it has to be a material matter in the case at hand.

    clinton lied about the nature of his relations with Monica Lewinsky while testifying in the Paula Jones case. There are valid arguments on both sides about whether the nature of his relations with Lewinsky were material to the Jones case.

    It’s true that Clinton’s behavior was sleazy. It may have been sexual harrassment (though few on the right seemed to play up this part of it). Lewinsky could possibly have had a civil case against Clinton.

    All that said, if Vitter did hire a prostitute, he committed a crime.

    I find it interesting that those convicted of hiring prostitutes don’t have to register as sex offenders. Why is that?

  128. I challenge you to find one person who is defending what Vitter did. ST isn’t. I’m not. NC Cop isn’t. Ryan isn’t. Lorica isn’t. Severian isn’t.

    That is why I didn’t even bother GWR. The usual suspects drawing flies with their standard TP’s would have been a monumental waste of energy IMO. It slid of the rails early on and I’m not sure many were there except to provide the all too typical obfuscatory banter. So much for the enlightened so called *progressives*.

  129. And don’t think you weren’t instrumental in making it so, Lorica …

    No marc I think your BDS was instrumental in making it so. – Lorica

  130. Curious about the false pretenses for the war, NC Cop?

    Great to hear! There’s this and this and this and this and this LINK.

    Also, thanks for the prayers. Or did you forget to pray for me last night? Come on now, live up to your promises! Somewhere in heaven, Jesus of Nazareth is waiting to hear your ever-so-noble prayers for me, even as busy as He is thinking, “The government would give MY money to the poor?! But we’ll need that for the $442,000,000,000 we’ve spent so far on this war of self-defense I so cherish!”

  131. Go back and read the original post on this thread. I challenge you to find one person who is defending what Vitter did. ST isn’t. I’m not. NC Cop isn’t. Ryan isn’t. Lorica isn’t. Severian isn’t. Now contrast that with the lot of you excusing Clinton. THAT’s the point. Even YOU should be able to understand that.

    Absolutely GWR. It is hard to comprehend a group of people who defend a person for one thing yet assassinate another for that very same thing. Look at John Kerry outing Elizabeth Cheney. Look at how these guys still bring up Jimmy Swaggert, that was over 20 years ago and they still haven’t overcome it. Where is Swaggert in the hearts and minds of the right, does this man have a church anymore?? Ted Haggert was brought up too, same situation. The right didn’t insanely defend Ted, he stands convicted of his actions, yet when it comes to Bill Clinton it is just about sex. When Willian Jefferson was found with 90,000.00 of frozen FBI money it is obstruct obstruct obstruct, yet Libby should go to jail because of a memory lapse. Ok!!! Now on to Cheney!!! YAY!!! Come on guys get serious. So many on the left lost their credibility when Monica was just a figment of a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”, which isn’t that liar presently the front runner in all the polls for the left?? – Lorica

  132. Like I was saying before, there’s something new every day! LINK

    And you all are still crowing about sexual morality.

    There isn’t a person I’ve ever met on the left who felt that Clinton did not lie about Monica. There isn’t a person I’ve met on the left who didn’t feel that the affair Clinton had was wrong. And there isn’t a person on the left I’ve talked to who cares about Vitter’s mistake.

    It’s sex. It doesn’t come anywhere close to stealing elections, outing CIA agents, misleading the nation into war, breaking the law to spy on citizens, trashing Habeas Corpus and so on and so on.

  133. ST,

    What did kevin say that’s out of line?

    Look at John Kerry outing Elizabeth Cheney.

    First off, you’re thinking of Mary Cheney. As far as I know, Elizabeth Cheney isn’t gay.

    Second, John Kerry didn’t “out” her–her sexual orientation has been well known for years, and she worked for Coors in outreach to the Gay and Lesbian community.

    Meanwhile, Dick Cheney gets to have it both ways–he gets to be seen as supporting his lesbian daughter, while he supports legislation that restricts his daughter’s rights.

  134. “Just the Facts” wrote:

    Meanwhile, Dick Cheney gets to have it both ways–he gets to be seen as supporting his lesbian daughter, while he supports legislation that restricts his daughter’s rights.

    Me: You mean on issues like gay marriage?

    Cheney at odds with Bush on gay marriage 8/5/2004:

    DAVENPORT, Iowa – Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

    At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

    “Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

    […]

    “The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage” he said.

    […]

    Addressing Bush’s position on the amendment, Cheney said: “At this point, say, my own preference is as I’ve stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He’s made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue.”

    You really ought to change your name to “Just The Spin” or “Just the DU Talking Points” because, as I see it, so far you are 0-2 on the “facts” in this thread, at least by my count – first on your assertion on poor people pre-welfare days (having to cite Charles Dickens as a “source”) and you’re wrong again, this time on the issue of Dick Cheney’s supposed support for ‘restricting’ gay rights.

    Your “facts” are a lot short on truths and heavy on the spin.

  135. ST,

    I haven’t been able to find pre-New Deal poverty figures, but I did find pre-Great Society poverty figures (they’re available from the U.S. Census Bureau).

    The statistics are available beginning in 1959, when 18.5% of families were below the poverty level (this is during the supposed great economy of the 1959s.) The percentage of families below the poverty level dropped slightly to 18.1% for the next two years, then began dropping dramatically–17.1% in 1962, 15.9% in 1963, 15.0% in 1964, 13.9% in 1965, 11.8% in 1966, 11.4% in 1967, and 10.0% in 1968.

    Throughout the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations the percentage of people living below the poverty level bounced between 8.8% and 10.3% (the latter in Carter’s last year, when the economy went to pieces).

    From 1980 through 1998 the percentage below the poverty level stayed at 10% or above (peaking at over 12% in 1982 and ’83, and again in 1993). From 1999 through 2005 it’s fluctuated from 8.7% to 10.2%.

    I know that’s a lot of numbers (one of the reasons why talk radio, left and right, is problematic is that presenting number-dense data tends to drive away listeners, but some things just have to be presented with lots of numbers).

    So, I don’t know what was happening in the Kennedy administration, but it appears that the drop in the poverty rate began before the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration. It does appear that the the levels between which the poverty rate fluctuates has been reset at a level two-thirds or less than ws the case previously, though one really needs data through the 1950s to be sure what the previously baseline was.

  136. Yep your right it is Mary Cheney, it was early and I was wrong about that fact. As far as Kerry’s comment, it was not a well known fact amongst conservatives, and Kerry purposely tried to tear Cheney down with evangelicals when he said what he said. But here again is a case that you all say “what happens in an adults bedroom between consenting adults is their business”, and Kerry made it Everyone’s business. Nope, that can’t possibly be hypocritical. – Lorica

  137. Yep your right it is Mary Cheney, it was early and I was wrong about that fact. As far as Kerry’s comment, it was not a well known fact amongst conservatives, and Kerry purposely tried to tear Cheney down with evangelicals when he said what he said. But here again is a case that you all say “what happens in an adults bedroom between consenting adults is their business”, and Kerry made it Everyone’s business. Nope, that can’t possibly be hypocritical.

    That liberals can’t seem to grasp why it was inappropriate for Edwards to mention Mary Cheney’s being a lesbian, as well as Kerry’s mentioning of it, is proof positive that there is some type of ‘void’ there on the left with respect to knowing where not to cross the line. Mary Cheney herself was incensed at how Kerry and Edwards used her during the campaign, but her feelings, of course, don’t count.

  138. Does this not surprise you?

    LINK

    “U.S. Senator David Vitter visited a Canal Street brothel several times beginning in the mid-1990s, paying $300 per hour for services at the bordello after he met the madam at a fishing rodeo that included prostitutes and other politicians, according to Jeanette Maier, the “Canal Street Madam” whose operation was shut down by a federal investigators in 2001.”

    And still they lecture us about the “santity of marriage” lol…

  139. ST,

    Cheney has made conflicting comments about marriage equality:

    Cheney Flip-Flops On Gay Marriage
    01.12.04

    By Doreen Brandt

    (Washington, D. C.) Vice President Dick Cheney says he will support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, a reversal of his stand during the 2000 presidential campaign.

    More from the same story:

    Now, Cheney says he will support President Bush if the president pursues a ban on gay marriage. “Obviously, the president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes,” Cheney said in an interview with the Denver Post.

    Cheney would not say whether his changed opinion was the result of White House pressure or if he, as the parent of a gay child, has discussed same-sex marriage with the President.

    As I said, Cheney gets to have it both ways–he can be seen as supporting marriage equality by those who support it, and as opposing it by those who oppose it.

  140. Oh, come on. Mary Cheney was working for the Bush/Cheney campaign, and when John Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney thanked Edwards for his comments.

    Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation was NOT a secret. For righties to construe Kerry’s remarks as mean-spirited is just ridiculous.

  141. Just the Facts,

    Why didn’t you note that your source was the very biased GayWired.com? I’m guessing because if you had, all one had to do was check the link and go to the article to see how it was spun to make it look like Cheney had ‘flip flopped’ on a issue he clearly hadn’t? He’s obviously got to balance his personal beliefs alongside the administration’s (the President’s) agenda (which is why he said he would support “whatever decision the admin makes” meaning he’s going to support the admin no matter what), but he has made it very clear – both in 2000, and in 2004, that he personally does not support the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

    Try again.

  142. ST,

    You’re attacking the source without denying what the source said is true.

    It’s a little difficult to swallow the “I’ll go along with what the President says” line in this administration, because Cheney has wielded an extraordinary amount of power for a Vice President.

    You haven’t gone after those who have falsely claimed that Edwards and Kerry “outed” Mary Cheney–you can’t out someone who’s already out (and has, in fact, worked in outreach to the Gay and Lesbian community.)

  143. ST,

    You haven’t answered my question about kevin–what did he say that’s out of line?

  144. You haven’t answered my question about kevin–what did he say that’s out of line?

    That’s really none of your concern. Please stop asking it.

    It’s a little difficult to swallow the “I’ll go along with what the President says” line in this administration, because Cheney has wielded an extraordinary amount of power for a Vice President.

    ?? Has nothing to do with the fact that the man’s role, as VP, which is to throw his weight behind “whatever decision the president has made.”

    You haven’t gone after those who have falsely claimed that Edwards and Kerry “outed” Mary Cheney–you can’t out someone who’s already out (and has, in fact, worked in outreach to the Gay and Lesbian community.)

    You’re right. I’ve made it a point to corner you on the point about Dick Cheney supposedly supporting “restricting” the rights of his daughter, which you are flat out wrong about (as I have proven).

  145. Cheney isn’t all bad. After all, only 87% of his fellow citizens disapprove of his performance in office.

  146. That’s really none of your concern. Please stop asking it.

    But it is my concern–if I’m posting here, I want to know what the parameters of acceptable discourse are. What you’re saying is that you’ll decide on the spot what they are, with no recourse.

    That’s certainly your right, as the owner of this blog, but it’s not conducive to reasonable debate.

    As far as I could see, kevin wasn’t being abusive, or even saying anything that wwasn’t true.

    By the way, Newsmax, hardly a leftist site, also said that Cheney switched to opposing marriage equality:

    Cheney: I’d Support Ban of Gay Marriage

    NewsMax.com Wires
    Monday, Jan. 12, 2004

    DENVER — Vice President Dick Cheney, who has said states should handle the issue of gay marriage, now says he would support President Bush if he proposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

    Yes, he “prefers” it be handled by the states, but he doesn’t seem to have a big problem with the Federal Government decreeing that no state may allow marriage equality.

    Your attempt at “cornering” me has failed, and you’ve proven nothing. Perhaps instead we can have a real discussion.

  147. But it is my concern–if I’m posting here, I want to know what the parameters of acceptable discourse are. What you’re saying is that you’ll decide on the spot what they are, with no recourse.

    Everytime anyone posts a comment here, they see a box in dark grey right above the formatting keys that lists my comment policy. You have been posting here quite a bit the last two days, well long enough to have seen it and read it. Don’t blame me for your failure to read it or failure to comprehend it, and I believe it’s more the latter than the former, since you’ve clearly misconstrued what I’ve said.

    As far as I could see, kevin wasn’t being abusive, or even saying anything that wwasn’t true.

    Somehow that doesn’t surprise me that you’d view things that way.

    By the way, Newsmax, hardly a leftist site, also said that Cheney switched to opposing marriage equality:

    Uh, no. That’s what their headline said, but what the article quoted was almost exactly how the MSNBC piece stated his opinion. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    Your attempt at “cornering” me has failed, and you’ve proven nothing.

    LOL! Denial is a river, “Facts.”

    Perhaps instead we can have a real discussion.

    I think the types of ‘real’ discussions you like to have involve the ones where everyone agrees that the administration is into “stealing elections, outing CIA agents, misleading the nation into war, breaking the law to spy on citizens, trashing Habeas Corpus and so on and so on.

    With that in mind, and since you’re obviously so intent on being able to continue to have “kevin” post alongside you, I suggest *you* go back to where you both came from, where you can have more of these ‘real’ and ‘true’ types of “discussions.” Buhbye.

  148. It might not have been a secret Facts, but it was a big surprise to the evangelical community. It didn’t come out in the 2000 election, sorta puts the kibosh on your theory. Also as far as Dick Cheney saying thank you, a true statesman would never allow something like this to get under his collar. Which was yet another reason to tell the whole nation in a national debate, which isn’t outting, that she is a lesbian. Hey Facts would you like a scapel to cut this hair abit thinner?? – Lorica

  149. Maier’s attorney, Vinny Mosca, upon learning of his client’s allegation on Tuesday, said he had never known Vitter to visit the brothel or heard Maier mention his name.

    “Through all my association representing Jeanette in the case, his (Vitter’s) name never came up. It’s not on the list. He was not caught on the wiretaps. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t (at the brothel), but in all this time I never knew him to be. To my knowledge he didn’t go to the brothel.” Mosca said.

    Reluctant, this does bother me, but I am not willing to crucify the guy over it. Did you read the whole article?? Did you see the above quote. Maier’s own attorney didn’t know that Vitter was a client. The funny thing is most on the left flat out refuse to believe that testimony of most people. Tell me when you hear someone say that God healed them from cancer what is your first thought??? Yet you believe this woman just because she can float an accusation and the MSM decides to run with it. – Lorica

  150. NC Cop wrote:

    “Another favorite argument of mine. Do tell, what false pretenses do you speak of? Also, do you harbor any anger at the many democrats who voted for this war and defended it, up until it began to cost them their jobs, or do they get a pass?”

    You know, the WMDs that Bush and Cheney went on about, which were never there in the first place. Those pretenses.

    And yeah, I’m not big fans of Democrats who supported the war, either. Still, most of them are the lesser of two evils.

  151. “The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life – they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.” Ah, but life is so much MORE fulfilling if you do succumb, enjoy yourself thoroughly, repent, get forgiveness, get redeemed, and then do it again and repeat the process as often as necessary. Vitter had a long-standing contract with a prostitute in Louisiana before moving upmarket to the services of the D.C. Madam. Of course, he repented for the earlier youthful indiscretion as well as the later youthful indiscretion, and I’m sure he’s still youthful enough to manage a few more flings before he’s done. I imagine Ted Haggard is also due for a few more rounds of falling, repentance, and redemption, as are Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley and a long, long list of others. As St. Augustine said, “Let us be saved, but not too soon.” Words for a Republican to live by!

  152. You know, the WMDs that Bush and Cheney went on about, which were never there in the first place. Those pretenses.

    Ah, you do know that there were more than a few other reasons, all of them listed in the AUMF that all of your fellow Democratic cronies voted for. And you do know that over 500 chemical munitions were found, there is ample evidence of weapons being moved to Syria, etc.

    And if Clinton or the other Dems asserted that there were WMD but none were found, that’s just a mistake, anyone could have made, but if Bush made the same mistake that’s obviously a malicious lie designed to get us into a war. Riiiight. If a Dem does it it’s a mistake, if Bush does it it’s a lie. Nice parsing. I guess BushCo was so omnipotent he knew that all the intelligence about WMDs were wrong, hell, he’s so good he managed to corrupt the intel info for years before he was president. Love the way the libs take an intel error and turn it into a deliberate evil lie by Bush, you know, the same Bush you think incapable of tying his own shoes.

    But it’s always the same, every time a lib comes around here, like I said, the exact same statements and arguments, like a hive mind shared among pod people. And you can refute them over and over and it rolls off their backs like water off a ducks, and they go right back to parroting the same idiotic statements.

    The only thing the libs have is a violent, visceral hatred of Bush. No ideas, no responsibility, no maturity, just hatred and a childish need to scrunch up their faces and stamp their little feet until they go blue. And you wonder why we conservatives don’t trust you with adult responsibilities…8-|

  153. As St. Augustine said, “Let us be saved, but not too soon.” Words for a Republican to live by!

    As opposed to the Democrat words to live by: Save us, hell, what perversion should we try next? Gay necrophilic bestiality is a right!

  154. Sev:

    Thanks for pointing out that Saddam did in fact have WMDs. I have often argued this fact on other blogs – to the amazement of anti-war activists. They claim that they were too old, the wrong “type” (whatever that means), the wrong size, color, odor, blah blah blah….

    I also recall (link lost due to a computer disaster) that some 200 empty chemical warhead shells were also found. These were important because although they had no chemicals they were also banned. By my count that puts the WMD count at over 700.

  155. I’m sorry, but I still don’t see the problem with the Mary Cheney comment from the 2004 VP debate. Edwards’ comment about Mary was a statement of praise for the Vice President; he said that it was a wonderful thing that Mr Cheney loved his daughter, and I don’t imagine anyone here, Left or Right, will disagree with that statement. The fact that the Religious Right would find such a statement of love for an openly gay daughter offensive says more about them than it does about Edwards.

    I’ve read people on the Right complain that folks on the Left have this unfair view of Bush and Cheney being 100% EEVIL!!!, and I agree that such views are incorrect. Bush has some fine qualities, as does Cheney, and they deserve praise from the Left when they exhibit them. Cheney standing by and supporting his openly gay daughter is to be lauded. I, for one, refuse to deny Cheney the credit he is due for this simply because he might lose political points with those who think he should abandon or ignore his daughter.

  156. Severian wrote:

    “there is ample evidence of weapons being moved to Syria, etc.”

    Yes, I’m sure that Saddam, while on the verge of being invaded by the world’s greatest superpower, decided to move his WMDs to Syria. Just because he felt like it! That makes total and complete sense!

  157. Yeah MD, out of all the people I’ve seen who say they were too old and not really WMDs, I’ve not met anyone who wanted to sit next to one. And as they were all supposed to have been destroyed, the mere possession of them is a major, actionable violation of the UN resolutions.

    Then there’s the mobile weapons labs. Two of the three agencies who investigated these say they are weapon labs, but the one who disagrees is the one that gets all the press. Like an oil rich country needs to make hydrogen for weather balloons from organic bacteria, yeah, riiiight.

  158. severian.

    Can you please let us know where can we find the links to the evidence of any WMD’s moving from Iraq to Syria? EVIDENCE not hear say, or theories by the Right.

    Also can you please point out to us where is the reference to the 500 “munitions” in any report from the three commissions sent by Bush to Iraq. I am specifically looking for any report that mentions these munitions of yours in direct reference to proof of any findings of WMD’s.

    Severian. Have you heard the saying “You are entiteled to your opinion, but not to your facts” ?
    I am just trying to find out if the sudden exsistance of WMD’s in Iraq is your opinion, or a fact. If it turns out to be a fact, then my friend you have made history on this blog, for not even the most rabid Bush staffer is making those claims any longer.

    As for the “other reasons listed”. I hope they were correct because a lot of our soldiers have paid with their lives. But please Sir, don’t insult my intelligence by resurecting WMD’s again.

    You are a serious individual I take it. Please try to keep your credibility.

  159. Sorry Sister, that is exactly what republicans try to do. Your argument is a liberal argument, basically live and let live. It is the republicans who try to get into everybody’s business. Vitter actually claimed he was better than those liberals who got caught doing exactly what he was doing all along. Oh, and by the way, thanks to your party, it won’t be long before the supreme court will make you have to pay some sort of internet tax to keep your site going!!! Think voting!!!!

  160. Severian, I can’t help noticing how lip-smackingly creative and imaginative you guys are about thinking up perversions to blame on “the Democrats.” Ever heard of a thing called projection? It’s common among very repressed people trying to deny their own urges while sanctimoniously ranting about the immorality of others.

  161. Lorica.

    “Gil, you know so little is truly shocking. The defense only gets twelve rejects, then they have to take what comes” . “The prosecution loaded the jury with Liberals”.

    Lorica, please try to make some sence will you? ANd please try hard not to invent your “facts”.

    From where are you getting that the Jurors were Democrat partisans? Where is the evidence that the prosecution loaded the jury with Liberals? Where is the logic that tells you that loading the Jury with Liberals will not result in a Republican Judge, a Republican Justice Department, a Republican Prosecutor, and a Republican Defense Lawyer not crying foul way before the tryal got started????????

    Lorica, the selection of Jurors is called “voir dire (speak the truth)” and in Federal Courts is done by the Judge presiding the case PERSONALY. The Judge presiding the case was a Republican.

    That is to say that your idea that a Republican Judge, a Republican Justice Department, and even a Republican Prosecutor would allow what you suggest defies all logic.

    I don’t even know why I am even following you in responding to self serving theories . Like it or not LIBBY WAS CONVICTED. He had a first rate defense, and he has the Appeals Court willing to hear his case. I am sure your “stacking the Jury theory ” would have come up on Appeals, so what did Bush or Libby had to loose????

    Furthermore what gives you the idea that using your party afiliation as the basis for rejecting some one could not be used by the defense as

  162. gil,

    Try to follow the logic:

    1. Saddam used poison gas against both the Kurds and the Iranians. That is a FACT, so I’m entitled to it.

    2. Poison gas is defined as a WMD. Another fact.

    3. Therefore, Saddam had WMDs, Q.E.D.

    So I throw it right back to you: you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. And the facts do not support your opinion.

    Regarding the question of a nuclear program, here’s my question: if Saddam wasn’t trying to build one, why did every intelligence agency – ours, the Brits, the French, and even the UN – conclude he was? Why was he trying to acquire yellowcake in Africa? Another fact that you’re ignoring, by the way.

    So there are basically two scenario endpoints we can consider here:

    At one end, either Saddam had a serious WMD program in place and he shipped much of it to his Baathist brothers in Syria,

    Or the other end: every intelligence agency was wrong, and he had an entirely benign use in mind for yellowcake uranium.

    The second scenario doesn’t pass the laugh test for anyone even one step to the right of Michael Moore. The reality needle is much much closer to the first one.

  163. Susan lectures us:

    Ever heard of a thing called projection? It’s common among very repressed people trying to deny their own urges while sanctimoniously ranting about the immorality of others.

    Ah, but lookie here, in her earlier comment:

    Ah, but life is so much MORE fulfilling if you do succumb, enjoy yourself thoroughly, repent, get forgiveness, get redeemed, and then do it again and repeat the process as often as necessary…I’m sure he’s still youthful enough to manage a few more flings before he’s done.

    Projecting here, Susan?

  164. I don’t like debating with my lib friends, as they always end up looking stupid, and I feel bad.

  165. Let’s see, the main false pretense was that Iraq had ongoing programs to build nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. You do remember those claims, don’t you?

    Wow, we are still stuck on that one, huh? Let’s see:

    I’ll let you all browse all the quotes by some famous dems, including your god Clinton, about Iraq’s WMD program.

    Quotes on Iraq

    Just in case you miss my favorite, here it is:

    “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

    Former President Clinton
    During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
    July 22, 2003

    So I’m curious, was Clinton lying about the intelligence HE had, or did Bush doctor the evidence while he was still governor of Texas? It has to be one or the other, which is it?

    Do you remember how the right made fun of Hans Blix, saying he couldn’t find anything if it was right in front of his nose.

    You mean the Hans Blix who said this:

    “The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

    13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.”

    Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
    Addressing the UN Security Council
    January 27, 2003

    Interestingly enough, he said this just two months before the war started as Coalition forces were surrounding Iraq. So, was he lying then or is he lying now? Just because he didn’t agree with the war , doesn’t mean he didn’t think Iraq had the weapons. There are some other quotes by Blix in the link above, feel free to check them out.

    Administration officials were claiming that our troops would be in Iraq for only a short amount of time.

    Have to admit, I don’t remember this one. Got a link? I’d love to read a quote, like the ones I’ve provided. I do seem to recall Bush saying the war on terror was going to be long and unlike any war we have ever fought. Then again, maybe they only showed that speech on Fox. Hmmmmmmm.

    There were also numerous insinuations that Iraq was involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Wow, so now they’re guilty of insinuations, huh?

    Administration claims about Iraqi weapons programs had already been debunked–those of us who read lefty websites knew this.

    LOL!! That’s great, because we all know how reliable and fact based lefty websites are!! Did you happen to catch the quotes by all the dems on Iraq in that link, even Joe Wilson!! The dems were all on board and cheering it on, but when things turned bad and opinion started to drop, they bailed out like rats on a ship. Absolutely cowardly.

    No, they don’t get a pass.

    Apparently they do since I don’t hear anyone calling for their impeachment or prosecution. It seems that your excuse for the democrats is that they were either incompetent or lying, which is it?

    Nickj wrote:

    And yeah, I’m not big fans of Democrats who supported the war, either. Still, most of them are the lesser of two evils.

    Guess you haven’t been paying attention.

    I guess you also believe that Bush somehow manipulated the intelligence of Russia, England, France, Germany, and the U.N. who all believed that Saddam had WMD’s. They must all be part of the vast right wing conspiracy!

  166. Yes, I’m sure that Saddam, while on the verge of being invaded by the world’s greatest superpower, decided to move his WMDs to Syria.

    Oh, but Nick, Saddam had plenty of advance warning that we were coming, oddly enough given to him by a democrat:

    Rockefeller’s treachery

    Just so you don’t miss the good part, I’ll highlight it:

    “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq

    Hmmm, January 2002 more than a year before the U.S. invaded Iraq. I would hardly call that “on the verge of”, would you? It would seem Saddam had plenty of time, don’t you think?

  167. Sister Taldjah.

    Was there a problem with my posts answering Lorica, and severian or do you have a problem with a Centrist in your blog?

    No insults on my part, no bad language, so it most be that you simply feel free to delete any one that sounds reasonable.

  168. Also guys there is some precedent that Sadamn would do this sort of thing. In 1991 he knew that our Air Force would rip his to shreds so he asked Iran if he could move his fighter jets there, which they readily agreed to do. When the war was over he asked for his fighters back. Iran told him no and dropped his pilots off at the border. =)) That is why this time he buried his “illegal” fighter jets. – Lorica

  169. NC Cop.

    I hope you get my response before is deleated. For some reason I became “Persona non Grata” … Go figure.

    Just a few points on WMD’s that I tried to make before to Lorica, but were deleated.

    A) There were three different commissions sent by the Bush Administration. There were no WMD’s found.

    B) There were hundreds of inspectors on the ground prior to the war.

    Now the WMD’s could have been moved to Syria, or Iran, or wherever you like. But in fairness that is a theory, not to be confused with facts.

    You see credibility demands that you either debate theories on its merits, or you try to debate facts as found by Professionals on it’s merits.

    Is not fair to try and debate facts Vs. a personal theory.

    When you say Democrats gave Saddam an advanced warning that we were comming…. I ask myself, if the warning was not about 100,000 troops in Kuwait and our fleet in the Mediterranean warning enough.
    NC Cop. Anithing is possible, but the reality as it stands today is that no one in a position of Power has ever come out to declare that the Syrians have Saddam’s WMD’s.

    There is another thing that troubles me about this WMD ‘s move to Syria theory. If Saddam had WMD’s ready to be used…. What do you think he had them for ???? To be moved to Syria when U.S. forces are massing at Iraq’s border’s ??

    Is it logical for a mass murderer like Saddam to move his WMD’s to Syria thereby making them usless for his defense when confronted with the entire U.S. Army ready to attack??

    He was a mad man, he was not stupid.

    What do you think?

  170. A) There were three different commissions sent by the Bush Administration. There were no WMD’s found.

    Then why do you suppose Bill Clinton said what he did and supported the war, calling Saddam Hussein a threat? Was he just trying to help Bush out? There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had those weapons and we all saw how willing he was to use it.

    B) There were hundreds of inspectors on the ground prior to the war.

    Indeed there were, and they were constantly denied access to sites, threatened, and thrown out of the country. Why do you suppose Saddam would not allow inspectors into certain sites? Because he had nothing to hide?

    Now the WMD’s could have been moved to Syria, or Iran, or wherever you like. But in fairness that is a theory, not to be confused with facts.

    Sure it’s a theory, but as Lorica just pointed out it’s a theory that Iraq has already used in the first Gulf War when it flew it’s air force to it’s enemy Iran. It’s not as if the theory is without precedent.

    I ask myself, if the warning was not about 100,000 troops in Kuwait and our fleet in the Mediterranean warning enough.

    And I ask myself, during the year of Rockefeller’s treason (Jan. 2002) the buildup had not yet begun there were not hundreds of thousands of troops on the border in Jan. 2002.

    What do you think he had them for ???? To be moved to Syria when U.S. forces are massing at Iraq’s border’s ??

    Many of the U.S. critics, including France, had stated that if Saddam used WMD on U.S. forces they would join in the war to remove Saddam. Saddam had everything to gain by getting rid of those weapons. Again, if Saddam had no weapons, why would he refuse weapons inspectors?

    He was a mad man, he was not stupid.

    Gotta disagree on that one, he was pretty stupid.

  171. What are you talking about, gil? I haven’t deleted anything you wrote. Unless you used a word that is blacklisted, which would mean that the post would be deleted automatically without me seeing it. That has happened to regulars before. Please on’t assume just because you don’t see something that I’ve deleted it. Try posting whatever you did again, and if it doesn’t go through, email it to me so I can see what words might be causing it to be deleted. Sometimes the blacklist deletes on a partial match (like it used to delete posts with the word “via” even though I had “viagra” in my blacklist at the time, not “via”).

  172. gil, the only way you would look like a centrist is by comparison to Trotsky.

    500 WMD Found in Iraq

    WMD to Syria

    See, a few seconds on Google, and there you go. Now I fully expect the usual weaseling out of any facts that are inconvenient to your continued refusal to remove your head from the sand.

  173. Many of the U.S. critics, including France, had stated that if Saddam used WMD on U.S. forces they would join in the war to remove Saddam. Saddam had everything to gain by getting rid of those weapons. Again, if Saddam had no weapons, why would he refuse weapons inspectors?

    NC Cop, all the usual liberal apologists who are so incredulous that Saddam would move these tend to forget that in the first Gulf War he flew his fighter aircraft into Iran to try and keep the US from destroying them, so there’s ample precedent for him moving WMD to Syria.

  174. Heheh! Well, considering that the Vitter/Bubba arguments the left have been making have been thoroughly refuted, of course, ‘certain folks’ had to switch off to something else ;)

  175. I’m just going to hijack this thread and discuss Johan Santana’s performance in last night’s all star game for all of you baseball lovers ;)

    2 strikeouts… nice :)

  176. “than pressuring an unpaid intern to put out or get out.”

    Uh, I think the record shows who was the sexual aggressor in Monica v. Bill. This is the sort of statement for which there is no factual basis that one gets used to from dittoheads.

    There are these other delightful fantasies on parade here. Such as the person who believes that this article
    LINK
    which asserts what nobody disbelieved–that Iraq had chemical weapons–somehow disproves the assertion that Bush, Blair, Powell, Cheney, Rice made over and over again–nuclear mushrooms, thirty minute deployments etc. “The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.” oooh I’m scared! Wave the flag! Kill the towelheads! Or at least kill the Dixie Chicks!

    I have to say I don’t believe some leftover corroded mustard gas shells with all the sophistication of 1915–despite the fact that “technically” they “meet the definition of WMD”–in a basketcase country 10,000 miles from the USA seems like a great justification for spending a half trillion taxdollars, getting 30,000 US soldiers killed and wounded, and destroying the international standing of the USA. But if you think it was worth it just keep posting.

  177. Heheh! Well, considering that the Vitter/Bubba arguments the left have been making have been thoroughly refuted, of course, ‘certain folks’ had to switch off to something else.

    Apparently Iraq is all there is with these people. And if Iraq hadn’t happened, they’d be as whiny and violently upset by Afghanistan. The only reason Afghanistan isn’t getting the same treatment from them is that they think they can look more hawkish in their surrender monkey chops by saying “well, I support the war in Afghanistan it’s only Iraq I have a problem with.”

  178. Yeah MD, out of all the people I’ve seen who say they were too old and not really WMDs, I’ve not met anyone who wanted to sit next to one. And as they were all supposed to have been destroyed, the mere possession of them is a major, actionable violation of the UN resolutions.

    Wasn’t there a politician who, in the last couple of years, said that those who think the WMDs that were found really ‘aren’t’ WMDs, then they shouldn’t mind putting them under their kitchen sink? ;)

  179. Righto ST. Knowing the leftist mentality the way I do, if we had found stockpiles, the meme would have been “Well, with the US constantly bombing and threatening Hussein, he had to have them to deter US aggression. If we’d just been nicer to him he would never have felt the need to have them.” ;)

  180. Lorica.

    Your observation about WMD’s sent to Syria by Saddam is pure speculation and a self serving theory.

    On the other hand you do have a Good point about the Saddams Jets sent to Iran, and more importantly your point is factual, and that’s why is good.

    That’s progress.

    It would be nice if you will stick to facts, not theories that you or someone else comes up to justify facts that’s you can’t explain, and don’t like because they don’t fit your prearranged ideas. You remind me of Hillary defending Clinton’s behavior with her ” Is a vast Right Wing Conspiracy theory” Did you not laugh at the remark???? I did. You know why? Because is a clear attempt to explain and defend, what can’t be defended.

    Case in point. I am suppposed to accept that Libby is not guilty because you now have the theory that the Jury were a bunch of Democrats????? I gave you a bunch of reasons why Libby was as guilty as Clinton, I gave you a bunch of researched facts in my deleated post, but you change the subject and come up with self serving theories to justify facts you don’t like, and then you believe you are actually debating. And of course Clinton comes out guilty, and Libby inocent with the exact same set of FACTS, and the world is right on the Right. No Sir is not, you are simply making up a set of ideas to your liking as you go along, and then make pretend that you made a point…. Like Hillary.

    Now back to Saddam.

    Saddam knew for a FACT that his regime was not under treat. The Gulf War was a war designed to take Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade Iraq. Saddam had the full expectation of keeping power after the war, and therefore he had that incentive to hide everithing of military value before it was destroyed. And so he did. That is unless you actually believe that the man’s intentions were to use his Air Force in the after life.

    With Bush’s invation of Iraq, Saddam had no hope of continuing in power. The entire purpose of the invasion was to take him out of power. If he had WMD’s to defend his regime having our Army and Navy poised for invasion would have qualified as a good time to use them, unless again you think the guy tough they could be of any use for him while burning in hell…. In any case your logic as usual escapes me.

    Lorica. Any one can “make a point” , but you only win that point when it is made with FACTS, AND FOLLOWING FACTS TO LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS.

  181. Apparently Iraq is all there is with these people. And if Iraq hadn’t happened, they’d be as whiny and violently upset by Afghanistan. The only reason Afghanistan isn’t getting the same treatment from them is that they think they can look more hawkish in their surrender monkey chops by saying “well, I support the war in Afghanistan it’s only Iraq I have a problem with.”

    If GWB was a clone of Bill Clinton, the left would still hate him because he ‘stole’ the election in 2000. Everything always goes back to that.

  182. Hey, Ryan, I may not have an artillery shell under my sink but I have part of an anti-tank missile in my den!

  183. Righto ST. Knowing the leftist mentality the way I do, if we had found stockpiles, the meme would have been “Well, with the US constantly bombing and threatening Hussein, he had to have them to deter US aggression. If we’d just been nicer to him he would never have felt the need to have them.” ;)

    Or “bbbbut it wasn’t the quantities we were told they’d be in!!” “Bush lied!!”

  184. gil wrote:

    He was a mad man, he was not stupid.

    If he wasn’t stupid then why did he allow himself to be duped by all those scientists telling him he had more WMD than what they actually had?

  185. With Bush’s invation of Iraq, Saddam had no hope of continuing in power. The entire purpose of the invasion was to take him out of power

    You could also argue that he moved them/hid them because he didn’t think the invasion would actually take place. “Hey, if they don’t find them, I might get out of this alive!” Too late.

    How many UN resolutions did Saddam violate? That’s a good enough reason to take him out right there. IMO, he should have been taken out in 1991, but that’s an entirely different thread than this mess of a thread.

    Now, back to artillery shells and anti-tank missiles in the den..

  186. Lorica.

    Let’s see I checked Google in WMD’s to Syria.

    Nisar Ladyud Know the guy? He is a Syrian that defected, and is telling Europeans that Saddam’s WMD’s went to Syria.

    There is an “open sources” report on WMD’s to Syria.

    An Iraqi General named Sada made the allegation under interrogation.

    You see the drift right??

    Now let me ask you. What do you consider proof of anithing Lorica?

    I am supposed to believe Nisar Najud, and open sources, or Gen. Sada over three Presidential Commissions sent by Bush himslef and that’s just for starters?????

    500 WMD’s

    You know maibe YOU SHOULD READ THE REPORTS.

    I just did and the first article that came out under YOUR recomendation is titeled “Munitions found in Iraq meet WMD’s criteria”

    If you read it clearly says that the munitions found were manufactured in the 1980’s, were found in the desert and I quote ” The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980’s Maples said. Badly corroded they could not currently be used as originally intended”

    I don’t believe anyone is disputing that Saddam had WMD’s at some point in time. To translate your “proof” of WMD’s to a corroded set of munitions found in the middle of the desert, as a reason to start a war is simply not a fair point of debate.

    You Sir need to understand one thing. There are facts, and there are allegations. What Mr. Lisar Nayud whomever the guy is, represents an allegation.

    If I come out and tell you I am a Vampire will you believe me??? Or do you have a particular reason why you trust Mr. Nayud, and Mr. Sada over Presidential Commissions staffed by hundreds of experts, and that presented thieir findings to a Republican Congress under oath.

    If you look at Google and ask for “Roswell” Mr. Lorica you’ll find plenty of people that say they witnesed little green man running around New Mexico right after the “Crash” . Or ask for Clinton Right Wing Cospiracy and you’ll come up with a bunch of names of the alleged conspirators…. Does that make Hillary’s Bull true????

    Now you can believe that, or you can believe the U.S. official position that Roswell is not about Martians. Or you can believe that Hillary was telling the truth because you can find support in Google But please for once be consistent!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But that’s too much to ask from you right?

    I see a patern Sir. Some unknown guy makes a remark that fits your idea and presto!!! It’s real. If on the other hand the same methodology is applied to people you don’t like, or decisions you don’t agree with, then magically the source becomes non-credible. There most be some one in Google claiming that the Jurors in Libby’s case were all Partisan Democrats right?

    Too bad that’s irrelevant.

  187. Sister Toldjah.

    Who said that Saddam was duped?

    In my opinion, and this I most point out is a conjecture Saddam was simply bluffing.

    What do you do when you have a weak hand, but want to continue playing???

    What do you think that would have happened to his regime if his enemies would have found that the man was in for the taking?

    I am talking about Iran, I am talking about the many Shiite factions inside Iraq, I am taking about the Kurds.

    And of course I am talking about us.

  188. Uh, I think the record shows who was the sexual aggressor in Monica v. Bill.

    LOL! That’s right, Will, Clinton was the victim!! He had no choice but to have sex with her, that poor guy.

    Chu added.” oooh I’m scared! Wave the flag! Kill the towelheads! Or at least kill the Dixie Chicks!

    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    Did you miss this next part, Will?

    While that’s reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.

    That means that terrorists/insurgents could have used the chemicals inside to kill people. I can only imagine what you would be saying about Bush if one of these weapons had been smuggled out of Iraq and used in the U.S. Perhaps you would say “Of course Saddam had chemical weapons, everybody knew it!! Why didn’t they do anything about it.

    I have to say I don’t believe some leftover corroded mustard gas shells with all the sophistication of 1915–despite the fact that “technically” they “meet the definition of WMD”–in a basketcase country 10,000 miles from the USA seems like a great justification for spending a half trillion taxdollars, getting 30,000 US soldiers killed and wounded

    Of course you don’t, until it goes off on U.S. soil, then we want heads to roll, right?

  189. In my opinion, and this I most point out is a conjecture Saddam was simply bluffing.

    What do you do when you have a weak hand, but want to continue playing???

    What do you think that would have happened to his regime if his enemies would have found that the man was in for the taking?

    Bingo gil!!!! You’ve finally seen the light!!! If Saddam was bluffing that means he wanted people to believe he had the weapons. So if that’s the case, Bush didn’t lie about them!!

    AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!!!!

  190. Ummmm gil??? Don’t you make these very same points on your

    Comment by gil @ 7/11/2007 – 4:29 pm

    Post??? I will concede that I didn’t know the accused didn’t get his “voir dire” in a Federal Jury trail. That is news to me. Which means that he was tried by a jury of the judges peers?? That doesn’t really make any sense. When I said what I said I was only quoting the interview I heard with Libby’s Lawyer right after the trial. I could of heard it incorrectly. I am more than willing to admit that. That certainly doesn’t mean I should be corrected twice.

    Lorica.

    Your observation about WMD’s sent to Syria by Saddam is pure speculation and a self serving theory.

    At what point in time do I post about WMDs going to Syria?? I am not the super genius that you are gil, but I was smart enough to look over all of my posts on this thread and not a single time do I mention WMDs going to Syria.

    gil I think you are obsessing on me and it is sort of scary. Thanks for trying to help me in your little condecending tones, but I really have a hard time taking advice from someone who doesn’t know how to spell the word deleted. Good Luck in this life gil, I have the feeling that you are going to need it. – Lorica

    NC Cop.

    I hope you get my response before is deleated. For some reason I became “Persona non Grata” … Go figure.

    Just a few points on WMD’s that I tried to make before to Lorica, but were deleated.

  191. Who said that Saddam was duped?

    Via Fred Kaplan:

    In the Times interview, Kay does add one dimension to his tale—and it is the newest, most intriguing aspect of them all. In the late 1990s, it seems, Saddam took personal control of Iraq’s WMD program. As a result, Iraqi scientists started going to him directly with proposals of fanciful weapons systems, for which Saddam paid them heaps of money. As Kay puts it, the WMD program turned into a “vortex of corruption.” Saddam was deluded with fantasies; the scientists pocketed the money and filed phony progress reports on fake weapons systems.

  192. Well, having had the pleasure of working with the NGIC in the past, I’ll take their assessment of the shells as valid WMDs over the protestations of an online liberal-zombie like gil any day. In point of fact I’d take NGIC’s word over the CIA’s any day, they don’t have the political ax to grind the career bureaucrats involved in the CIA do. In my experience working with them they have proven themselves to be professional and accurate and deadly serious about their jobs.

    But of course zombies like gil have to denigrate any evidence that runs counter to their memes. Even though the UN tested the same classes of chemical weapons in 98/99 and found the chemical agents inside to be of high purity and undegraded. They’re just old rusted shells (how do you know that?) found in the middle of the desert (do you know exactly where they were found?).

    Pretty pathetic attempt there to subvert reality. Guess that’s why the apparent indignation shows up in the writing style, for some reason liberals always feel that it adds some kind of credibility to a weak argument.

  193. Ryan.

    Like I said. You can argue wherever you like. That’s your right.

    I just don’t consider logical that a man that is facing the entire U.S. Army, and Navy poised to INVADE, decides to hide his best weapons instead of using them for leverage against an invasion. Or that some how he wanted to play chicken with Bush by risking moving all his WMD’s into the open, transport them to Syria, and do it while hundred of inspectors were running around in his country, and all our satellites were pointing in his direction.

    Tell me Sir, what would have happened if Saddam would have said ” You want to know if I have WMD’s Mr. Bush”???? Now Let’s see you have about 100,000 troops massed outside my border. Send them and you’ll find out that I DO HAVE THEM. In fact let me send you pictures of them”.

    “Now Mr. Bush when you are trough explaining to the American people how it is that in invading my country you caused what you were supposedly trying to avoid (Me using my WMD’s against Americans) , and as a result tens of thousands of your soldiers are now dead I’ll see you in hell”.

    That’s what a Dictator with real WMD’s does. Unless maibe you think that if we attack Iran and they have Nuclear Weapons, they will run to hide them in Namibia.

  194. I just don’t consider logical that a man that is facing the entire U.S. Army, and Navy poised to INVADE, decides to hide his best weapons instead of using them for leverage against an invasion.

    So now YOU’RE arguing with theory, right?

  195. What do you do when you have a weak hand, but want to continue playing???

    According to the DBM they and you apparently just keep pecking away…..

  196. NC Cop.

    I never said Bush lied about WMD’s NC.

    Bush in my opinion honestly believed the exsistance of WMD’s, and so did Clinton, and actually the entire world including yours truly.

    The difference is that Bush decided to go to war Vs. Iraq over it BEFORE having conclusive evidence.

    I have tried repeatedly to point out the difference of allegations, gut feelings, personal ideas, theories…… AND FACTS. You do not take your nation to a war in the Middle of Arabia where we are hated if you are not ABSOLUTELY SURE of what you are doing.

    Other leaders pointed that out, and tried to help by sending hundreds of inspectors, and even asking Bush for some time to form a true Arab consensus, as Bush;s father did in the Gulf War.

    The reason Bush’s Dad did not take Saddam out when he had the chance, is not because he did not want to, but because he correctly understood the consecuences.

    You see some times the difference between failure and success is simply understanding the limitations of your power…. Not that you use it because you have it.

  197. gil without perspective wrote, “The difference is that Bush decided to go to war Vs. Iraq over it BEFORE having conclusive evidence.

    Bush and the Congress decided as well as the U.N. resolutions that called for force and 29+ nations joined us. If you want to diminish those nations’ contributions it only shows you and your liberal friends lack of diplomacy. You don’t go telling people who are contributors that they are weak.

    There was a greater coalition actually than during the Desert Storm. Perspective is the key you are missing or is it facts???

    You pull in irrelevant issues like “Bush’s Dad”. You have to understand the PERSPECTIVE of the time. Not one nation was for going into Iraq. In this instance of March 2003 there were MANY.

    Humanity’s struggle is against confusion. Strive for clarity.

  198. Lorica.

    Several points.

    I did not explain myself correctly. In Federal Courts the standard process followed to attain a 12 +1 Jury pool REQUIRES, that the presiding Federal Judge be PRESENT in the selection. The Judge in Libby’s case was a Republican Conservative. And in fairness if Libby would have won, the Liberals would have been making the same point you are trying to make…. “YOU SEE THE JUDGE WAS A REPUBLICAN AND THIS ENTIRE TRIAL WAS A FARSE” In the end, a conviction is a conviction and that’s why I tried to make you see; That is not for us to argue about the details because we were not in the Jury Box!!!! For us the question is either you are for our system of Jurisprudence with all it’s shortcomings, or you are not.

    I hope you are for it, and respect it because it’s the only system we have, and despites it’s obvious shortcomings it has served us well . And I also hope that you understand that we will loose , if some clowns decide that Justice now is given by political affiliation. And here I am talking about much more than Libby.

    As for my Iraq remark. If it was not you I apologize. And as far as my spelling, you are correct, is not the best. But we are not debating my spelling.

    I am as you pointed out far from a genious, and will not dare to be condecending to you or any one. I am just trying to express what I believe, and when I do I try my best to be balanced and logical in my views. I use facts as much as I can, and if I am not sure I conusult them from offical sources before I make my posts.

    If you point out to me mistakes that I made, and you are correct I don’t have a problem admitting I made a mistake…. What’s the big deal?? We all make them all the time.

    I pointed out that I like a lot of the ideas that the Republican Right stands for, but I do not agree with others just like I don’t agree with a lot of the Liberal’s ideals. What’s wrong with that? I do not agree with the start, and conduct of the war in Iraq. And for the life of me I can’t understand why after polls relecting so many Americans against the war you and others consider me a Liberal for it… But again, I don’t mind if you do … I just think you are wrong that’s all.

  199. gil at no time do I debate whether Libby was found guilty in a trial, or that he was sentenced by a judge. I do debate the fact that there was no change in venue, and there should have been. I also debate if Libby should have been tried in the first place. I understand what Libby was tried on, and I understand why he was found “guilty”. I just don’t believe that he should have been tried in the first place. I don’t believe that Fitzgerald had grounds to actually prosecute. I have my opinion on that, and with all of your constant battering of the issue that he was convicted and sentenced hasn’t changed my mind. Can you show me anywhere exactly what evidence they had against Libby. Thus far all I have is your say, which sorry to say, isn’t really “proof” or “evidence”. – Lorica

  200. Severian.

    Maibe I am not expresing myself clearly enough.

    You see when it comes to the exsistance of WMD’s in Iraq….. Theere is no longer a debate.

    I don’t even know why we are here pretending that 500 corroded munitions from the 80’s is proof of WMD’s. Or why am I a Liberal for pointing that out, or why do I again have to explain to you that the lack of WMD’s in Iraq was not something I came up with because I am a Zombie, but rather because it was the offial finding of a PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION that came to that conclusion following two previous “Fact Finiding Missions” sent by Bush. They testified under oath before Congress. The finding then was sent to the White House Officially. The White House accepted the result, and the case was closed. Or do you see any more “Fact Finding Commissions experts looking for WMD’s in Iraq still??????

    I tell you what . Why don’t you go to Google (you like it) and ask WIKIPEDIA WMD’S PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS IRAQ. At this point let me try to make you understand that “Official” means on the Congressional Record you know. As in the results of investigations ordered by Bush himslef you know? As in going to the Presidential Library to be studied by hystorians AS THE OFFICIAL RECORD. Not as speculation by the CIA, or NSA, or Gen. What’s his name.

    We can debate your personal feelings about the matter for the next 10 years. My point is that the OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT is that after sending the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) in May 2003, experts and politicians agreed that there were no WMD’s found. The ISG was the culmination and last of several fact finding commissions sent by Bush humself.

    It’s on the record. It’s official.

    What experts found was a bunch of trash buried in the desert, trucks that were used to inflate ballons not to manufacture WMD’s, and your 500 corroded munitions along with a bunch of other corroded tanks with Mustard Gas.

    That’s the extent of your WMD’s, and the theory purely speculative that Saddam wanted to use his WMD’s in hell, and therefore he sent them to Syria right before beeing invaded. Very logical indeed.

    Do I believe Bush lied us into a war? …. NO.
    Do I believe Bush rush us into a war ?….. YES.

    DO I believe this war necessary when talking about WMD’s? NO, unless your 500 corroded munitions were a danger to our National Security.

    NC Cop points out correctly that there were other reasons other than WMD’s to justify our invasion. There, maibe we will have some agreement. There were other reasons indeed. I hope those reasons justify the deads of so many of our own, because the exsistance of WMD’s did not….. AND THAT IS OFFICIAL.

    Hey don’t get me wrong I am on your side believe it or not. Or at least you can count on my help way before that of any Iraqi politician. I mention them because our Surge was supported by Republicans and it was designed to “buy time” and help the Iraqi Government do the necessary compromises to stabilize Iraq. Well it turns out that not only they did nothing, but they are taking off on vacation for the month of August. While our soldiers die to “give them time”….. Time at the beach maibe, but that’s not the time we had in mind you know.

    Severian. Some how you find me offensive, and attack me but I am an American, and I like you care about my country. This “politicians” you guys support on the other hand have no excuse whatsover to go on vacation while our best die for them “to buy them time” .

    It’s not right.

  201. Lorica.

    About Libby.

    Where you in the Jury by any chance. Because I was not and therefore I have no business (or you) in “debating” the particulars of a case we don’t know nothing about.

    I do make the point that you either accept the system that convicted Libby, or you don’t…. Your right.

    But be consistent. You see this is not about what you believe, any more than a Liberal believes that Clinton was unjustly charged by Ken Star. This is about what 12 jurors believed, and in the case of Clinton what Congress believed. If it was a Republican Congress makingthe Clinton impeachment desisition so be it …. You play with the hand you are delt. And by the way, here (Clinton) why don’t you use your defense of a “bunch of partisans were behind the conviction” as you do with Libby??? Or what do you think Republican Congressman were when they were trying to impeach Clinton???

    All I ask is for consistency. Is that too much to ask from you???

  202. Lorica.

    Look this is what I believe maine you can understand.

    No one forced Clinton to have a grand time in the oval office with Monica. It was his descision. He did it knowing full well as a Lawyer, that in an investigation such as the one he was experiencing under Ken Star, he could face a perjury trap at any moment. And he arrogantly rolled the dice and lost the bet. For Liberals to say it was not right for the Republicans to yake the moment and tun with it, is naive. Can I remind them that they all are politicians in Washington? Politics is a contact sport. You give them an open lane, and they score a touch down what do you Liberals expect? Mercy???.

    In Libby’s case he went to testify to a a Federal Grand Jury, and as a Lawyer( Just like Clinton) he should have known better. You roll the dice and lie at your own paril. Or you lie, and have a have a get out of jail card rolled up your sleve just in case.
    I don’t care in Libby’s case or in Clinton’s case about the fairness of their case. Some say life is not fair, and they are probably right.

    In the cases of Libby, Clinton, and so many other politicians convicted, pardoned, or ignored the common denominator is that they all know the score, and they all are tough guys with plenty of support behind them.

    They don’t believe in fairness (you live that to us), they believe in power. As in the power to get away with it, or on the other side in the power to make you pay for it.

    It’s a power struggle nothing more. Is the arrogance that makes politicians believe they are above the law…. Because they are. It’s the arrogance that takes to try to impeach a President and put everithing on hold because you can, and the President gave you an opening…. And America can go to hell. It’s the power to try to put a good soldier (Libby) in jail because he was sent to lie for his boss. And then his boss demonstrating to the Democrats who has still the power in Washington.

    It’s egos, and red meat for the base, and the partisans that’s all. They go to make a book and make millions, and we go to our beds angry with a guy named Gil or Lorica that we don’t agree with.

    Thinking how “unfair” the Republicans or the Democrats are. Yeah right.

    I was not born Monday you know.

  203. Baklava.

    Your know I have to say you lost me.

    You quote me ” The difference is that Bush decided to go to war Vs. Iraq before having conclusive evidence” In reference to WMD’s.

    And you question my “perspective”

    Because according to you ” Bush and Congress decided as with the U.N resolution that called for the use of force against Iraq, and 29 Nations joined us, and I am ignoring their contributions, and it only shows that I am a Liberal (of course), and the coalition was bigger than in Desert Storm”…. etc, etc.

    What on hearth does that have to do with Bush going to war before getting conclusive evidence of WMD’s????? Why am I loosing “perspective” if I point out to you and others that it is not only reasonable, but down right absoultely indispensable for us Americans to expect our Commander in Chief, to have absolute proof of his claims before he sends people into harms way????

    What on hearth do you think is the Commander in Chief’s MOST BASIC responsability in deciding when to send our best to die??? ….. Goose bumps, CIA reports doctored by Cheney???? Claims by some character exile from Iraq????

    Look Sir, I believe that Bush tried to push the case of war on WMD’s and links to Al Quaida without any solid facts, because he honestly belived there was a case to be made, and his gut instinct was correct. In pushing the case with no real facts he risked his reputation, and America’s reputation if proven worng. Well turns out he was wrong. That is a fact, there were no WMD’s ( I am sounding like a broken record by now). I also believe that Bush Sr did not invade Iraq in Desert Storm because he knew the consecuences…. You know? What you see now in Iraq…. A BLOODY MESSS!!!!! THOSE CONSECUENCES. So my “perspective” and that of SR. is fine thank you…. I wonder about yours.

    What does other Nations joing us in the war has to do with perspective?? Good for them they were our allies, they took Bush’s word for it, and Congress the same. On way does the support of Nations, and Congress justify a Leader that did not look hard enough and RUSH US INTO A WAR BEFORE THE FACTS WERE IN????

    If anithing it makes it more glaringly wrong….. AS IN THEY ALL TRUSTED US AND WE FAIL THEM!!!!!!!!

    One final comment. The U.N did not approve any invasion Vs. Iraq Sir. Check that fact of yours.

  204. gil innocently and naively asks, “What on hearth does that have to do with Bush going to war before getting conclusive evidence of WMD’s?????

    Let me rephrase your question to make my point because perspective matters :d

    What on [h]earth does that have to do with Bush/Congress/29+ countries going to war after believing the intelligence agencies of the U.S., Britian, France, Russia, and Germany and having evidence with the added time of folks like you that made it a 14 month long rush to war that weapons were shipped to Syria.

    gil wrote with no logic, “Look Sir, I believe that Bush tried to push the case of war on WMD’s

    Yes, he inserted those beliefs into Albright, Gore, Clinton and Kerry back in 1998, and the 5 intel agencies above. Bush is magic ! Or your logic is flawed.

    You are sounding like a broken record because we simply disagree with your version of the facts. Your perspective is flawed. I simply disagree with your last statement which isn’t even based on my original statement about the U.N. Iraq faced “serious consequences” listed in point 12 of Resolution 1441.

    Homework questions:
    1) What war has ever been run without “flaws”?
    2) What year was intelligence 100% correct in any country?
    3) What invasion has the U.N. ever “approved” or “authorized”?
    4) How many Vietnamese were killed after we left Vietnam?
    5) Do you believe that we would be responsible for the humanitarian crisis that most even Democrats admit is likely to happen if we leave Iraq?
    6) Was the war against Germany a preemptive war in WW2?
    7) How many American Marines died in just capturing the one island of Iwo Jima and what length of time did that take?
    8) Is America ever allowed to take military action in it’s interests in your mid without the U.N. explicitly authorizing military force or an “invasion”?
    9) Did Clinton obtain “permission” from the U.N. for it’s use of force in Yugoslavia?
    10) Are American troops in Bosnia now?
    11) How many years did it take to rebuild Japan and Germany after WW2?
    12) About how many American troops are in Iraq versus other parts of the world?
    13) Do you like your women in burka’s – no need to answer that one but if you would do the rest. Should be easy questions because you are so smart right?

  205. Do as I say, not as I do.

    No need to lead by example.

    All you have to do is say what’s right. It doesn’t mean people should look to you to do what’s right.

    Given the long list of GOP politicians who have done depraved things in the past few years, this is the only way that their faithful can continue to claim ownership of morality.

    This post is hypocrisy in the extreme. Essentially, this post is telling us that the people claiming ownership of morality should not be held to account for doing immoral things – that their intentions, rather than their actions, are the true measure of their morality.

    Of course, the poster feels the need to say, without any proof, that Dems and Reps alike will be caught in this prostitution scandal. I’m sure we’ll see who’s involved. But until then, don’t paint it as a bipartisan problem. Instead, consider the count of high-profile conservatives who have been caught in sexual scandals recently, then compare them to high-profile liberals.

    Then again, you’ll find one liberal and claim it equals 10 conservatives – just as your ilk claims William Jefferson balances out all the indicted Republicans.

    Fred

  206. the OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT is that after sending the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) in May 2003, experts and politicians agreed that there were no WMD’s found.

    Sounds very similar to what was said about my Mothers clean bill of health, two months before she died of breaches in her immune system.

    Allow me to put this in simple terms that even the simplest leftard moonbat can grasp, even while in the throngs of a compassionate battle during a saturday night ride with a pulsating bong…..Run long and hard as you like but unless you abide on a different planet and your filtrate breathings require no oxygen, these Islamic basturds – for whatever reasonings Da jour, want your head removed from your body.

    While you coo and resonate in the corner, having convinced the elder teens in your group that your twisted imbalance is in fact, a fact, you simply bring about yours as well as our own demise on a more expedient scale for them. THAT is what apologists DO! BS kills and so does BDS. Is this your goal? Do you even have a goal that can be even REMOTELY defined, as something relevant to the American way of life?

    Feel free to leave the country and show the world a better way. LEAD! SHOW us something, as your insistent childish babblings fall short! Even the mindless wanderers of climactic toadstools had a plan! Your examples of idiocy are extremely precious but not to Americans! Not to folks who’ve sacrificed their own and have “Knowledge” of what it takes to keep the only country in the world like this moving forward.

  207. My point is that the OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT is that after sending the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) in May 2003, experts and politicians agreed that there were no WMD’s found.

    Yeah, and the OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE U.S.GOVERNMENT before then was that there were. So what? And you do realize that the munitions that were found were found for the most part after May of 2003.

    As for the mobile labs, you are of course aware, as all liberals are sooo well informed, that three different agencies reigned in on the labs, the ISG, the DIA, and the CIA, and two of the three said they were biowar labs. Why that got downgraded to not being a biowar lab is beyond me. And generating hydrogen via biomass to float weather balloons makes absolutely no sense in a hydrocarbon rich country like Iraq, you can crack it off of natural gas a lot more easily.

    And as I said before I’ll believe NGIC before I believe most of the other alphabet agencies, as I have experience with them and how they operate. I strongly suspect the closest you’ve ever gotten to the intel community gil is the NYT editorial pages.

    You talk about a rush to war, 18 months is a rush eh? And that loooong rush has nothing to do with not finding larger quantities of WMD in Iraq. And the fact that he had significant dual use capabilities and stockpiles of precursors that could have been turned into nice shiny new chemical weapons and more in a matter of weeks if sanctions had been removed is of course nothing to worry about, move along, nothing to see here.

    You, like most liberals, have a serious failure of imagination. You’d apparently be perfectly fine living next to a proven serial killer who’s got a gun if the gun wasn’t actually loaded but the bullets were in the kitchen drawer. Fortunately for us, people as politically blinded to the realities of the world usually don’t wind up running the country.

  208. One final comment. The U.N did not approve any invasion Vs. Iraq Sir. Check that fact of yours.

    Err, we didn’t need approval, it had already been granted for the original Gulf War, which ended in a cease fire conditional on Iraq’s continuing to abide by terms that they had flagrantly violated. This was a continuation of the original war, not a new one. The UN confirmed that when they voted to agree that Iraq was in material breach of the UN resolutions. If they had not wanted the war to go on they could have held a vote on that issue and specifically said they didn’t find a breach sufficient to warrant military action, they didn’t.

    Besides, since when does the US need UN permission? And secondly, many in the UN were getting very wealthy on Oil for Food money, so the UN is hardly going to be an honest arbiter of the worlds problems.

    Or is all of the above too nuanced for you?

  209. I meant point 13 not 12 in resolution 1441. Everyone knew what it meant. Except those who wanted to quibble….

  210. Pingback: The Daily Nightly

  211. Of course, the poster feels the need to say, without any proof, that Dems and Reps alike will be caught in this prostitution scandal.

    And I’m sure when a democrat’s name does come out in that book, you’ll rush right back here to apologize, right Fred?

    I won’t hold my breath.

  212. And by the way, here (Clinton) why don’t you use your defense of a “bunch of partisans were behind the conviction” as you do with Libby???

    I am not using this defense because Bill Clinton 1st lied to the grand jury, then admitted that he had the affair, and confessed his crimes for all America. Bill Clinton, as usual, is his own worst partisan. =))

    All I ask is for consistency. Is that too much to ask from you???

    I ask the same of you please. Your rememberances of events are abit off from reality, as proved from the above.

    gil you are constantly attempting to prove something to me that you will never be able to prove. I have zero (0) respect for you, and I just don’t learn well from people I don’t respect. You have only pointed out the obvious, and have not sourced that at all. I do tend to work in theory, and speculation, and at no point in time have I confused them for reality. I quite well understand what reality is gil. The reality of what I have seen so far from you, is that you are still upset about Libby’s Commutation, and you want to let the whole world know that “HE WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY”!!! Yippie, skippy!!! He also had that sentence commuted. I only said what I said about Libby due to some other poster making some stupid comment about a comment I made about Bill Clinton. /whew Talk about a run on sentence.

    Now you can say what you want about me, I don’t really care. Honestly it really doesn’t bother me that you and I won’t see eye to eye on these subjects. It would bother me and has, when Dear Sis and I have disagreed or when myself and other posters here disagree, mostly because I respect them, and have learned so much from them. I don’t think you are right, I think you like to believe you are, and I am certain when this all plays out, you will be more right than I, or at least in your own mind that will be true. I personally think you have a very empty life if you have taken it upon yourself to “correct” me with such consistancy. I would like to thank you, I have enjoyed myself, but honestly this horse is quite dead, and no matter how hard you beat it, it just ain’t commin’ back to life. Take Care gil, the pleasure was all mine. – Lorica

  213. Sev, speaking of the CIA, I just saw that Rowan Scarborough, who is a Pentagon Correspondent for the Washington Times, has a book out called Sabotage: America’s Enemies Within The CIA. The American Compass book club’s review is as follows:

    For 15 years, Rowan Scarborough has covered the Pentagon for the Washington Times and is one of the most respected—and news-breaking—defense reporters in the country, with unparalleled sources in the Department of Defense. But he has sources all over the Slough of Despond we call out Nation’s Capital, including patriotic people in all levels of national security—from field officers to high-ranking analysts to former intelligence heads—and now the bestselling author of Rumsfeld’s War reveals how CIA bureaucrats are undermining President Bush and the War on Terror through disinformation, incompetence and outright sabotage.

    This is a disturbing picture of partisan politics endangering the success of our campaigns abroad…and the very lives of our soldiers and agents fighting the War on Terror.

    Sabotage will describe:

    • How CIA’s war on the administration began, exposing the myth of a “conservative” CIA

    • How the president’s opponents in the CIA worked with the media to trick four powerful lawmakers into doing its bidding

    • How some senior CIA officials openly battled the administration and ran a disinformation campaign against the Commander-in-Chief

    • How Porter Goss, former Director of Central Intelligence, was eaten alive by the CIA’s bureaucracy

    • How the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame “scandal” was a set-up from Day One

    • How the Agency still manages some intelligence successes—and why we don’t hear about them

    • How little the CIA knows about what could be the next target in the War on Terror: Iran

    Bet that would be an excellent read.

  214. An excellent, but undoubtedly infuriating and ulcer producing, teeth gnashing read. The CIA and the bozos at State seem to be convinced that they constitute the lawful government of the US and as such it’s their position to set policy and hamstring elected officials they disagree with. If Wild Bill could see them now, bet he’s spinning in his grave.

  215. Pingback: The Daily Nightly

Comments are closed.