Comments Posted By B.Poster
Displaying 271 To 280 Of 397 Comments
FOLEY MATTER PROVES REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PERVERTS
Richard
The Democrats can and do block things when they don't get what they want. The Republicans would do the same, if they were the minority party. The notion that they have no control does not seem to be accurate. When it comes to the Senate, they have even more power. They can and do filibuster anything they don't like. The Republicans would do the same. America is very much a part of planet earth. Washington is run on a system of checks and balances. Right now no one party has enough Representatives or Senators to have absolute control. Also, there is much diversity within the parties. No one group has control.
IncandenzaH
Both parties have been amazingly unsuccessful at keeping secrets from each other for a long time. I just have been unable to imagine how this case would be any different. Now I could be wrong. Perhaps the Republicans became much more clever at keeping secrets than they used to be.
In any event, former Rep Foley, if convicted, should get a very lengthy jail sentence. I also think House leaders should be charged and convicted, if it is proven they actively tried to cover for someone who they knew was a pervert.
The investigations will reveal who knew what and when they knew it. In any event, former Rep Foley will probably go to jail. Other Republicans will probably go down with him, as they should, if they are guilty of a cover up.
Until the investigation is completed, it would be unfair to link the actions of a few as indicative of the entire party. I would say the same thing, if a Demcrat stood accused.
While I wish something had been done sooner, I think Republicans are proceeding on the right path right now. Rep Foley has resigned and an investigation is about to get under way. Hopefully this will reveal all of the facts. If a cover up is proven, the Republicans will likely lose the House and the Senate, as they should. I also hope members of Congress will focus on investigating a case of sexual misconduct and work on bringing guilty parties to justice and not try to use the investigation as a tool to score political points.
Steve-ex pat200,000 more troops would make a big difference. A friend who has served in Iraq says, if you really want to help the troops, ENLIST. I would but my eyesight is not good enough.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 16:42
# 41: The investigation should be completed before any final decisions are made. We would need to determine who knew what and when. If it is determined that Hastert participated in a cover up, which seems highly likely, then he should resign and being prosecuted. Questions should also be asked of the Democrats for failing to perform the proper oversight functions. It has never been a problem before for either party to over see the other. I think they likely knew about this ll months ago but it would need to be proven. At best, it appears the Democrat was incompetent and at worst a co conspirator. In any event, the investigations will need to be completed.
Its interesting that you would bring up blame Clinton. Clinto has nothing to do with this. The use ofthe term "Bushbot" was also interesting. Personally I can't stand George W. Bush but both he and Bill Clinton are not relevant to the discussion.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 16:10
IncandenzaH
The Democrats would not allow the Repbulcians to keep sensitive files from them. I don't think they are that incompetent. Part of the complete investigation will need to focus on this aspect.
Richard
The Republicans and the Democrats both manage the Government and it is owned by the people who elected the Representatives and Senators. The bottom line is the Democrats seem to have failed in their oversight function. By trying to shirk this responsibility indicates a party unworthy of being trusted with power. By covering for a pedophile, the Republicans show they are party unworthy of being trusted with power.
Montysano
The Government in general is to powerful. It has only grown more and more obtrusive over the years, however, the President does not have unfettered power. He is checked by the Courts and by Congress. If there is a branch with unfettered power, it would be the jJudicial branch. They are able to undo the will of the people virtually at whim. A good place to start with limiting Government power would be to weaken the power of the Judicial branch.
Btw, both parties will probably attempt to keep things hidden from the other, as it benefits them. This is why oversight is functioned. To keep folks accountahle.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 16:02
A good question to ask during the investigations is how the Democrats managed to fail in their oversight function. We expect a "minority party" to be providing the proper oversight.
IncandenzaH
You are right the Republican party does not care about the voters or the so called "base." Like you I hope they get it now and will vote for new leaders.
The Democrats need to ask their leaders how they failed in their oversight functions. To have failed in their oversight function this badly would indicate either incompetence or they knew about this for a year or so and did not nothing. This does not look good for either party.
Republicans and Democrats should demand new leadership. It is time to vote for someone other than the same old, same old that the Republicans and Democrats have to offer. It is time to vote in third parties to office.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 15:37
Chuck
If Iraq fails, it likely becomes a terrorist haven. It has not failed yet.
The threat from Iraq was believed to be its ability to transfer WMD to terrorists. About 30 nations along with the US evaluated this threat and agreed with us to the point that they agreed to assist us, in some way. Obviously much of the intellegence was wrong. The WMD clearly are not "there."
Also, had we not intervened, the sanctions likely would have collapsed and Saddam's regime would be stronger than ever now, as well as continuing to be an active supporter of terrorists. Saddam, as a supporter of terrorism, had to be dealt with in some way. It was also becoming clear even before 911 that the middle east, as it was, was becoming an existential threat to the US and the situation on the ground there needed to be radically altered. Iraq seemed a good place to start.
While many people realized that the situation in the middle east needed to be altered, the mission never got the resources it needed to give it a realistic chance of succeeding. If the stakes were properly explained to the American people, we could probably get the resources we need to do this properly. For failing to properly explain the stakes, I blame the politiicians in both parties and the news media. For failing to plan and execute a war properly, I blame Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration for failing to hold him accountable.
Now hopefully, as long as it is consistent with national security interests, the Democrats will take the lead on making the adjustment and get the proper troop and financial commitment to Iraq. If we succeed in Iraq, we can probably deal the Jihadists a very decisive defeat. For better or worse, it may not be in American national security interests to commit a larger amount of troops to Iraq right now. We need to be flexible enough to handle threats from Russia, China, and Venezuela.
The US government cannot even find the will to commit the appropiate resources to Afghanistan nor could it find the will to stand up Hezbollah during Lebanon's war with Israel. The US capitulated before the UN and forced Israel into a cease fire. Had the war been allowed to continue for about three more months, Israel could have dealt a decisive defeat to the forces of Islamic extremism. Unfortunately a fundamentally unserious government lacked the will to see the fight through.
Since the will is lacking right now, the missions in Iraq and probably Afghanistan to will be scaled back very soon. Their will likely be fewer than 10,000 troops in Iraq by July of 2006. These will be mostly special ops who will be backed up by air support. They will be based in Kurdish areas and will be prepared to intervene in the Iraqi civil war, as necessary, to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. Hopefully this will work, as this is the strategy that will be used.
A little perspective may be needed on the Iraq Body Count report of 43,500 deaths may be needed. The average rate of deaths per day for civilians was estimated at 75-125 per day during the rule of Saddam Hussein. If the Iraq Body Count report is accurate, as it probably is, this would be about 33 deaths per day since Hussein's regime was removed. Also, a look at the data base shows that most of these deaths are being caused by the activities of terrorists who deliberately target civilians. If we commit the proper amount of troops to this, we can probably put a stop to this. Again, I'm waiting for the leader who will have the courage to step forward and point out what needs to be done.
In the final analysis, it should be clear to policy makers that the size and strength of the military needs to be increased substantially. Even if we withdraw from Iraq, we will need a larger military. in the coming years we are going to have be able to project a credible detterent to Russia, China, and Venezuela.
Right now we are not even able to find the will to do something as basic as border security. Right now the leadership is fundamentally unserious about national security.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 14:40
Turnabout
Most of the Iraqi civilians are being killed by "insurgents" not by American troops. This needs to be made abundantly clear. The problems in Iraq can be fixed by commiting more troops to provide for security. I'm hoping the Democrats will step up and show the leadership to get this done.
If we now have more terrorists than in 2003, this is becuase we have not fought decisively enough. When you commit to few troops to Iraq and Afghanistan it sends a message to the enemy that you are fundamentally not serious about what you are doing. Hopefully the Democrats will step and take the lead on getting more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
We can get more troops for the GWOT and Iraq. Its a matter of getting the will to do it. Right now the will seems to be lacking on the part of the electorate.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 14:00
I suggest investigating this matter fully and let the chips fall where they may. The important thing is to bring perverts to justice no matter who they are.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 13:11
GOSSIP AS POLITICS: WOODWARD'S WHITE HOUSE HIT JOB
Richard
I'm sorry I have trouble making myself clear. The Republicans are not "my guys." Personally I can't stand Republicans and I would not know which Jedi mind tricks you would be referring to. Both parties will flat out lie when it serves them and they think they can get away with it. I will not be voting for any Republicans this time around. I will be voting for third party candidates. I'm leaning toward the Constitution party.
The question I suggested that the Aemrican people should pose is why was this not exposed sooner by either Republicans or Democrats. Both parties almost certainly would have known about it.
I could be persuaded to vote for Democrats, if they will make a commitment to allocate the appropiate resources to Iraq to do the job properly and they if will drop the various lies that say "Bush lied" and the variations of these diatribes.
The Republicans have lost all credibility. Right now I am unable to see a situation where I could be persuded to vote for Republicans in November. I say vote for a third party. Give someone a shot at power who currently does not have it.
With the Foley case the important thing is to bring the pervert to justice, if he is commited. Right now he looks very guilty. Also any politician rather they are Republican or Democrat who aided or abeeted him should be brought to justice. No one should use this situation to play partisian politics.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 12:48
Richard
She might want to ask her fellow Democrats why they did not inform her of this before now. Republicans monitoring Democrats and Democrats monitoring Republicans is a full time job. Both parties spend more time monitoring each other than they do looking after the interests of the nation's citizens.
Either the Democrats who are over seeing the actions of the Republicans did not inform her, she was not paying attention when they did inform her, the Democrats who are over seeing the Republicans are so incomptent that they somehow missed this, or Ms. Pelosi is lying.
I'm not one to accuse people of nefarious activities without proof and I don't level the charge of incompetence lightly. I am going to assume she and the leadership simply were not paying attention when the leadership was informed. For each party, watching what the other one is doing is a full time job. It seems unlikely they would be so incomptent to have missed this.
The point is both Republican and Democratic Congressional staffers would have known about this for a very long time and an investigation was not started until now. Oversight by both parties of each other is, to an extent, a legitimate function of Government.
As I said earlier, I generally don't like to accuse people without clear evidence but it looks like this is a case of partisian politics. Oversight of each party by the other is a full time job. If we assume the Democratic party leadership somehow missed this, this requires us to assume they are completely incompetent. They clearly are not. They would have known about this. Staffers in both parties and probably the leaders would have known about this but it is only being reported during an election season. It leads one to believe that if this were not an election season both parties would have allowed a suspected pervert to go scott free. This does not reflect well on the Government as a whole.
If the roles were reversed and the Democrats controlled more seats in the House and Senate and it was a Democrat being accused and this was just now coming forward, I would ask the same questions. Why are the Republicans just now bringing this forward? If they say they did not know, this would mean that even though oversight of the Democrats is a full time job and always has been they were somehow so incompetent they missed it. People don't rise to the level of Representative or Senator by being incompetent.
In other words, it is highly unlikely that top offfials in both parties did not know about this. Given that they had to have known, they did not come forward with this. Either both parties are to incompetent to have known or they are both corrupt. Either way you look at this, both parties are unfit for the offices they hold and should be voted out.
Finally. Mr. Foley is innocent until proven guilty. This should be investigated and the chips should fall where they may. If he is guilty, and it looks like he is, he should have to pay steep consequences in prison time.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 30.09.2006 @ 01:40
Ricahrd
Why was this not stopped? Thats a very good question. If these activities were known about for months by Republican leaders before they went public, they would have also been known about for months by Democratic party leaders. Given how closely Democrats monitor Republicans and how closely Republicans monitor Democrats Democratic party leaders would have also known about this for months to. If they could not have prevented this through regular channels, they could have leaked it to the press. Neither Republicnas nor Democrats acted to stop this. The reason is becuase both parties are corrupt and need to be removed from power.
This assumes that the details of this were known for months, which is probably correct. Bo one acted to stop this. Trly disgraceful.
Comment Posted By B.Poster On 29.09.2006 @ 22:46
