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

Posted by: ST on July 10, 2007 at 10:27 am

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:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Conservative Outpost trackbacked with Sen. Vitter on DC Madam list
  • UNCoRRELATED trackbacked with Politicians and Hookers: So much in common
  • The Daily Nightly trackbacked with Nuthin' but Net
  • The Daily Nightly trackbacked with NUTHIN' BUT 'NET
  • 233 Responses to “Senator David Vitter (R-LA) first ‘big name’ from DC madam’s phone number list”

    Comments

    1. gil says:

      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.

    2. gil says:

      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.

    3. NC Cop says:

      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?

    4. NC Cop says:

      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!!!!!!

    5. Lorica says:

      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.

    6. 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.

    7. Severian says:

      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.

    8. gil says:

      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.

    9. NC Cop says:

      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?

    10. forest hunter says:

      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…..

    11. gil says:

      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.

    12. Baklava says:

      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.

    13. gil says:

      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.

    14. Lorica says:

      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

    15. gil says:

      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.

    16. gil says:

      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???

    17. gil says:

      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.

    18. gil says:

      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.

    19. Baklava says:

      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?

    20. Fred Garvin says:

      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

    21. 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.

    22. Severian says:

      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.

    23. Severian says:

      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?

    24. Baklava says:

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

    25. NC Cop says:

      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.

    26. Lorica says:

      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

    27. 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.

    28. Severian says:

      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.