Scouts reference in Ann Coulter Commentary

[GernBlansten]

Brent,

then more you try to shift the discussion to blaming democrats, the more you sound like you are defending Foley and the republicans who protected him.

 

When one finds himself in a hole, the first thing to do is quit digging.

[BrentAllen]

I guess the truth - and the facts - really hurt, don't they. And I guess it is a real bummer when the Democrats' October Surprise blows up in their faces.

 

I say bring on a full investigation of both the House and the Senate. Find out exactly who knew what and when. Let the chips fall where they may. Unlike Democrats, Republicans will clean their house; Democrats will just promote their criminals.

[packsaddle]

Brent, believe it or not I hope you're right. I hope the Republican party maintains its hold on every branch of the government. But you have to admit, right now that doesn't appear to be a likely prospect.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BrentAllen writes:

Unlike Democrats, Republicans will clean their house

 

Are these the same Republicans that changed the House ethics rules to shield Tom DeLay?

[BrentAllen]

Uh, where is Tom Delay these days? Speaker of the House?

 

Let's look at the Republicans that have screwed up and are gone:

Foley

Delay

Cunningham

Ney

 

Now, let's look at Democrats who screwed up and are still around:

Ted Kennedy

Barny Frank

William Jefferson

Patric Leahy

Harry Reid

 

Now, do you still want to talk about the Party of ethics and morals? I'll be glad to!

 

packsaddle,

I've seen grand predictions of Democratic wins unravel like a cheap sweater in the last 3 elections. It actually was a lot of fun to watch Terry McAuliffe promising the world to Democrats going into election day, and then have to try to explain their losses on Wednesday mornings. Do you really think Howard Dean is going to do any better?

 

An article in the Washington Post describes Karl Rove as "almost inexplicably upbeat" about the upcoming elections. Don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet against Rove and his record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101401051_pf.html

I guess we will see in a few weeks.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BrentAllen writes:

Uh, where is Tom Delay these days? Speaker of the House?

 

That doesn't change what your supposedly "housecleaning" Republicans did to change their ethics rules to specifically shield DeLay. DeLay's lack of ethics finally caught up with him, but the Republicans kept him as long as they could.

 

Now, do you still want to talk about the Party of ethics and morals? I'll be glad to!

 

Let's see, the Republican administration deliberately misleading the American public on Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks would be a start.

[Gonzo1]

Uh, wait a minute!

Merlyn,

you said:

Let's see, the Republican administration deliberately misleading the American public on Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks would be a start.

Let's see, well before we were attacked, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton and a bunch of other Democrats said that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the United States. They all said Saddam harbored and supported terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and that he used gas and nerve agents ON HIS OWN PEOPLE!

In case you're unaware, the United States has liberated Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam. There will not be anymore genocide in Iraq, no more rape rooms, no more public quartering of people in the middle of crowded soccer fields. No more torturing Iraqi Olympic athletes for not winning. No more will Saddam be a threat to us, that includes you.

 

So exactly where were you on September 11, 2001?

Don't you want to CONTINUE to be free?

I suppose it's as good a time as any for me to ask this question? Would you please turn in your Boy Scout Handbook to page 10 and then describe the Scout Badge, specifically the part about the Eagle and Shield? After you have done so, ask yourself if you are really doing what is says or not.

 

Gonzo1

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1, none of what you've said addresses the Bush administration's deliberately creating the false impression that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

 

Although it does resemble some of the arguments here...

 

"Foley (a Republican) is involved in scandalous behavior that other Republicans knew about months ago - blame the Democrats!"

 

"The US was attacked by terrorists, most of which were from Saudi Arabia - blame Iraq!"

[BrentAllen]

Merlyn,

First of all, it was not an Ethics rule the GOP changed - it was a GOP House rule. Just like the Democrats had their own rules when they ran the House, the GOP has their's. They are free to change them as they wish. The rule had nothing to do with the Ethics Committee or their rulings. Nice try, though.

 

Now, let's again look at a comparison. The GOP changed a rule to let DeLay hold his position while under indictment. Without even recognizing the fact that he doesn't now hold the position, let's look at the Democrats.

Ted Kennedy leaves the scene of an accident, letting a young woman die. He tries to cover it up and waits 18 hours to even report it.

Barny Frank fixes 33 tickets for his gay partner, who is running a male prostitution ring from Frank's apartment.

Patrick Leahy leaks classified information and is forced to resign from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

William Jefferson hides $90,000 in his freezer, bribes he took from an FBI informant, with matching serial numbers to bills the FBI had provided to the informant.

Harry Reid takes home a cool $1 million from property he didn't even own.

Bill Clinton had sex with a subordinate in the White House, lied to the American people about it, lied to a Grand Jury under oath, and encouraged others to lie about it as well.

 

Let's see - how many of them resigned on their own? Zero.

How many were forced to resign by their party? None.

How many are still holding office? All but Clinton, who was term-limited out.

 

So yes, let's compare the Democratic history of dealing with bad apples to the handeling of DeLay. The difference couldn't be any clearer.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I can't help noticing that when you ask about "the Party of ethics and morals" and I suggest the Bush administration deliberately misleading the American public about Iraq and 9/11, you don't even address that, but instead point more fingers at Democrats.

[Gonzo1]

Merlyn,

 

You said:

Gonzo1, none of what you've said addresses the Bush administration's deliberately creating the false impression that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Have you heard of the Bush Doctrine? Your're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. Which are you?

There's nothing false, Iraq supported terrorists, so did the taliban. Saddam paid a death gratuity to surviving family members of meany of the terrorists. That sound like support to me.

Another point, I wonder how many classified briefings you've participated in with the military, I've participated in hundreds. I retried fromthe Army in June. So, I'd bet that the military and the White House have better, nore current and accurate intel than Merlyn.

 

I'm sure that since Foley resigned, (he did resign didn't he? ) that he will get his day in court and will likely be fined and sent to jail for the bad things he's done. I havnt disputed that, nor have I blamed democrats. I believe that democrats never take the high road though.

 

How about Ted Kennedy (or ost Kennedy's for that matter), should he be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter or murder. Too bad he couldn't have been the hero and save MaryJo.

 

As long as Saddam had WMD, Saddam was a threat. Thankfully, he is no longer a threat. In the Global War on Terror, threats to the United States will be dealt with. I suppose you would rather wait to be attacked again and then blame Bush for not preventeing it. The President has said that during the Global War on Terror it would take a long time and would be fought in many parts of the globe. I hope you're thankful that we're taking the fight over there and not getting attacked again. We probably will someday, but I hope not. But when we do, I'm sure you'll blame Bush, won't you.

 

What I can't figure out is why you Saddam apologists like Saddam so much and wish for him to be in power.

 

 

By the way, what did you learn on Page 10?

God Bless America.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1 writes:

Have you heard of the Bush Doctrine? Your're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. Which are you?

 

Ah, disagreeing with the president is now treason, eh? That's the refrain of dictators and tyrants.

 

There's nothing false, Iraq supported terrorists, so did the taliban.

 

That doesn't show that Iraq had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks.

 

So, I'd bet that the military and the White House have better, nore current and accurate intel than Merlyn.

 

They do. However, if you haven't been paying attention, the intel Bush got did not indicate that Iraq had any connection to the 9/11 attacks.

 

As long as Saddam had WMD, Saddam was a threat.

 

Which WMDs would those be?

[Gonzo1]

Merlyn,

Ah, disagreeing with the president is now treason, eh? That's the refrain of dictators and tyrants.

 

I'm not saying you're committing treason, I'm asking if you are siding with the terrorist?

 

There's nothing false, Iraq supported terrorists, so did the taliban.

That doesn't show that Iraq had any involvement with the 9/11 attacks.

 

Iraq had involvement because Iraq allowed terrorists to train there and Iraq was at the time a state sponsor of terror. Iraq paid death gratuities to family members. Iraq had been called a threat by the likes of Bill Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Hilary Clinton, et al, because he was a threat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So, I'd bet that the military and the White House have better, more current and accurate intel than Merlyn.

 

They do. However, if you haven't been paying attention, the intel Bush got did not indicate that Iraq had any connection to the 9/11 attacks.

Iraq supported terrorism and terrorists. Iraq had training camps for terrorists and allowed and encouraged al-qaida to train there. It's not the 9/11 retaliation war, it's the Global War on Terror. It's global because it's global, as in all over the globe. As in, if another country is a threat to (including you Merlyn), that country will be dealt with.

 

Let me remind you the the United Nations made about 14 resolutions with language that included military options for Iraq to comply with the surrender documents of the 1991 Gulf War, but when Iraq didn't comply, Bush did something about it, because he said he would.

 

As long as Saddam had WMD, Saddam was a threat.

 

Which WMDs would those be?

Those would be the WMD's that US soldiers have found in several places around Iraq including more than 500 cannisters of gas and nerve agents. Too bad the American media is on Saddam's side too. Anything that's good for US and the U.S. and Bush is bad for the media and therefore can't be widely reported.

 

Again, what have you learned on page 10?

 

[Hunt]

"Dan Crane tearfully apologized for his actions, accepted his censure, and was promptly voted out of office."

 

He didn't resign, though. He ran for reelection, just like Gerry Studds did.

 

"What I can't figure out is why you Saddam apologists like Saddam so much and wish for him to be in power."

 

I can see why you're a fan of Ann Coulter. This is the kind of rhetoric she likes. Even though you must know that critics of Bush's Iraq policy are hardly "Saddam apologists," you say this anyway. Why?

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, so what I see is a discussion between the sides of the aisle over who is least reprehensible. Both sides have their share of human failings and the contest is to see whose side can spin the best.

 

Any thought on how Social Security will be fixed, because it has to be or how Medicare is going to work in the baby boomer age or is savaging each other's bones the primary mission of each political party and public policy pretty much a second thought.

 

I was once told that it was easy to be an independent because then you didnt have to stand for anything, well if I have to stand with either side I will be vomitting the entire time.