We interrupt this Foley garbage

[BT]

There are agendas within agendas.

It's like William Kristal from the Weekly Standard turning on the Bush Admin about the Iraqi War when as one of the more vocal neo-cons he was a leading advocate of it.

I don't see any reason for Hastert to resign, i don't see why he is legitimately in the crosshairs but i do understand that Foley and protecting the kids was never the goalline in this drama.

[sirs]

Republican leaders (that's the leaders of the Republican party) protected an ephebophile and let him keep on keeping on so they could hold his seat and maintain power.

Given the facts as we know them, that's pure unadulterated opinion on your part.  The e-mails in no way demonstrated anything remotely close to what the IM's eventually did.  The GOP told Foley to knock it off.  He said he would.  He lied.  He's now history.  If later we learn that Hastert DID know how egregiously slimy Foley was way back when, and sat on it, THEN you can have your Hastert BBQ.  And I'll provide the sauce

I think advocating a Constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying each other is a little more than "advocating living a moral lifestyle." 

How is empty rhetoric making anyone do anything?  If that's the best you can do, it's no wonder the Dems avoid advocating living a more moral and ethical lifestyle

I guess the big difference between Tip O'Neill and Studds on the one hand and Dennis Hastert and Mark Foley on the other is that in the intervening 20 years, the Republicans have positioned themselves as the guardians of traditional morality

There ya go....my point validated once again.  Since Dems don't advocate living as high a moral & ethical a lifestyle as Republicans supposedly do, when they "sin", it's no biggie.  The art of rationalization, at it's most upsurd

[sirs]

Angels and Intelligence Estimates

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 6, 2006

Lost between the Foley tsunami and the Woodward hurricane is the storm that began the great Republican collapse of 2006. It was only a few weeks ago that the Republicans were clawing their way back to contention for the November elections, their prospects revived by the president's strong speeches on terrorism around the Sept. 11 anniversary, the landmark legislation on treating and trying captured terrorists, and a serendipitous fall in gas prices.

Then came the momentum stopper, the leaked National Intelligence Estimate that was trumpeted as definitive evidence that the war in Iraq had made terrorism worse. Mark Foley's folly and Bob Woodward's history have overwhelmed that story, but it will remain an unrebutted charge long after Foley is forgotten and Woodward is remaindered. It demands debunking.
 
The question posed -- does the Iraq war increase or decrease the world supply of jihadists? -- is itself an exercise in counting angels on the head of a pin. Any answer would require a complex calculation involving dozens of unmeasurable factors, as well as construction of a complete alternate history of the world had the U.S. invasion of 2003 not happened.

Ah, but those seers in the U.S. "intelligence community," speaking through a leaked National Intelligence Estimate -- the most famous previous NIE, mind you, concluded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, slam-dunk -- have peered deep into the hypothetical past and found the answer. As spun by Iraq war critics, the conclusion is that Iraq has made us less safe because it has become a "cause celebre" and a rallying cry for jihad.

Become? Everyone seems to have forgotten that Iraq was already an Islamist cause celebre and rallying cry long before 2003. When Osama bin Laden issued his declaration of war against America in 1998, his two principal justifications for the jihad that exploded upon us on Sept. 11, 2001, centered on Iraq: America's alleged killing of more than 1 million Iraqis through the post-Gulf War sanctions and, even worse, the desecration of Islam's holiest cities of Mecca and Medina by the garrisoning of infidel U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia (as post-Gulf War protection from the continuing threat of invasion by Hussein).

The irony is that the overthrow of Hussein eliminated these two rallying cries: Iraqi sanctions were lifted and U.S. troops were withdrawn from the no-longer-threatened Saudi Arabia. But grievances cured are easily replaced. The jihadists wasted no time in finding new justifications for fury and reviving old ones. The supply is endless:
- Danish cartoons,
- papal pronouncements,
- the liberation of women,
- the existence of Israel,
- the licentiousness of Western culture,
- the war in Afghanistan.
- And, of course, Iraq -- again.

How important is Iraq in this calculus? The vaunted National Intelligence Estimate -- unspun -- offers a completely commonplace weighing of the relationship between terrorism and Iraq.
- On the one hand, the American presence does inspire some to join the worldwide jihad.
- On the other hand, success in the Iraq project would blunt the most fundamental enlistment tool for terrorism -- the political oppression in Arab lands that is deflected by cynical dictators and radical imams into murderous hatred of the West. Which is why the Bush democracy project embodies the greatest hope for a reduction of terrorism and why the NIE itself concludes that were the jihadists to fail in Iraq, their numbers would diminish.

It is an issue of time frame. The bombing of the Japanese home islands may have increased short-term recruiting for the kamikazes. But success in the Pacific war put a definitive end to the whole affair.

Moreover, does anyone imagine that had the jihadists in Iraq remained home they would now be tending petunias rather than plotting terror attacks? Omar al-Farouq, leader of al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia, escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan a year ago and was apparently drawn to the "cause celebre" in Iraq. Last month he was killed by British troops in a firefight in Basra. In an audiotape released Sept. 28, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq said that more than 4,000 of its recruits have been killed there since the American invasion. Like Omar al-Farouq and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they went to Iraq to die in Iraq.

It is clear that one of the reasons we have gone an astonishing five years without a second attack on the American homeland is that the most dedicated and virulent jihadists have gone to Iraq to fight us, as was said during World War I, "over there."

Does the war in Iraq make us more or less safe today? And what about tomorrow? The fact is that no definitive answer is possible. Except for the following truism: During all wars we are by definition less safe -- and the surest way back to safety is victory.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501551.html

[Plane]

"Which is why the Bush democracy project embodies the greatest hope for a reduction of terrorism and why the NIE itself concludes that were the jihadists to fail in Iraq, their numbers would diminish."

Yes ,this is how I have been thinking.



Do you suppose we could find a copy of that Osama Statement that claims that a million Iriquis were killed by the sanctions?


That sounds interesting.

[_JS]

Where did I mention Democrats or Republicans?  Where did I mention either party could enjoy low standards?

You helped reinforce the template....GOP running on an apparently higher moral/ethical standard, thus when they fall from grace, they can be not just condemned individually, but by plausible design, party wide.  Dems don't have such a burden, do they.  And I'm afraid I haven't seen a peep to help refute that standpoint by yourself, since I haven't seen any condemnations of Clinton's actions, any condemnations of Rep Studd's actions, any criticisms of how the Dems handled either of those situations, from your end of the keyboard.  Would you like to clarify your position on those 2 individuals and how the Dems dealt with each?

In other words, I never once mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Apparently, according to you I "helped reinforce a template." That wasn't my goal and you read into what I wrote as you saw fit. I've even defended Hastert on this very forum, so I'm not going to defend my actions to you. I'll "condemn" whomever I see fit whenever I see fit to do so. I do not require your partisan demands for explanations.

[The_Professor]

Foley should be up more on some of our nation's founders such as Benjamin Franklin, who said:

"I pronounce it as certain that there was never yet a truly great man that was not at the same time truly virtuous."

The nagain, such character is apparently almost non-existant in Congress as is evidenced by these numbers I located:

36 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits, and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
within the last year.

[larry]

Democratic voters have lower standards? If that means Democrats are not right wing fundamental zealots, as a party philosophy, I agree. Looking at the history of the Republican party from Reagan to George W. Bush it cannot be denied that the Republican leadership has killed millions of people around the World, all in the name of moral values. The Republican strategist used the issue of AIDS to incite violence toward gay people, clearly, a Nazi strategy of ostracizing to promote gay-bashing. The Republican strategist created the War on drugs to create a reason to wage war on Blacks and Hispanics. The Republican Strategist created false information to attack Iraq.

Looking at the history- I would say the Democrats have much higher standards than the Republicans.

[sirs]

JS; Apparently, according to you I "helped reinforce a template."

Bingo.  Whether it was your goal or not, the continued harping as if this all GOP wrong doing, while you ignore the history of Dems doing far much more, yet largely gets a pass, because, hey, they don't advocate living a higher moral & ethical life, so it's really no biggie when they have affairs, when they actually have sex with pages.  Yea, that's reinforcing the template

JS; I've even defended Hastert on this very forum, so I'm not going to defend my actions to you. I'll "condemn" whomever I see fit whenever I see fit to do so

Has anyone told you to do other wise?  Just pointing out the transparent hypocritical double standard of the left, is all I'm doing

Larry; Looking at the history- I would say the Democrats have much higher standards than the Republicans.

LOL....I needed a good laugh   

[_JS]

Bingo.  Whether it was your goal or not, the continued harping as if this all GOP wrong doing, while you ignore the history of Dems doing far much more, yet largely gets a pass, because, hey, they don't advocate living a higher moral & ethical life, so it's really no biggie when they have affairs, when they actually have sex with pages.

Apologies, I should have used some sort of sarcasm indicator with that reply. I wasn't really old enough to condemn anyone in 1983. So, I'm not sure what you want me to do beyond some sort of Star Trek space-time thing. If you've got Doctor Who's phone booth, I'll go back to '83 and condemn that Democrat guy. While I'm there I might make a few sports bets too. Was Microsoft publicly traded then?

My point was made on an individual basis Sirs. You even ask why it isn't looked at in such a manner, then go on to attack someone who does. Perhaps you've answered your own question?

[sirs]

My point was made on an individual basis Sirs. You even ask why it isn't looked at in such a manner, then go on to attack someone who does. Perhaps you've answered your own question?

Oh, I'm fully aware of the anwer to the question I didn't pose.  Whatever "defense" I must have missed regarding Hastert, appeared to be significantly overshadowed by the rationalized 1 sided attacks on the GOP, while giving a pass to the Dems for the same & worse.  And that, whether by design or by accident, just keeps reinforcing the template of GOP bad....Dems good.  And DC Affairs were happing long before and AFTER that of what Studds was cheered for doing

[_JS]

You let me know when you get that phone booth.

What I said regarding Hastert was that I see no possible reason for him hiding said actions by Foley. It makes no logical sense, no amount of money or promises on Foley's part could have made Hastert logically choose to hide Foley's actions had Hastert had full knowledge of them.

It isn't my fault what you read and don't read. By the way I have never defended this Rep. Studds actions, nor have I ever heard of him until recently. You can't honestly expect anyone to spend their time condemning actions of politicians. It would be a full-time job. In fact, there are probably people who do just that.

[Amianthus]

What I said regarding Hastert was that I see no possible reason for him hiding said actions by Foley. It makes no logical sense, no amount of money or promises on Foley's part could have made Hastert logically choose to hide Foley's actions had Hastert had full knowledge of them.

Exactly why I don't think that Hastert did so.

[sirs]

What I said regarding Hastert was that I see no possible reason for him hiding said actions by Foley. It makes no logical sense, no amount of money or promises on Foley's part could have made Hastert logically choose to hide Foley's actions had Hastert had full knowledge of them.

Might want to tell the Dems in DC and those hard core libs here that.  They seem to relish in the illogical & irrational

It isn't my fault what you read and don't read. By the way I have never defended this Rep. Studds actions, nor have I ever heard of him until recently

That's not surprising in the least.  When it's Dems doing it, the mainscream media hardly puts up more than a peep, thus its repetition is minimal.  When it's the GOP, even when it dwarfes what occured with the Dems, it's front page headline news, for days upon weeks, who knew what, when, and why was it allowed to happen, yada, blah, etc.

[Plane]

"...at the history of the Republican party from Reagan to George W. Bush it cannot be denied that the Republican leadership has killed millions of people around the World, all in the name of moral values. ...
Looking at the history- I would say the Democrats have much higher standards than the Republicans."

Democratic administrations from Kennedy , Johnson and Clinton have killed million in the name of what?