NCclimber

Who are we Americans as a nation? Based on most who have posted up so far... we're a bunch of whiny malcontents, who seem obsessed with the negatives... viewing the glass half empty even if it's overflowing. Can I get anyone a tissue? Nice post Lawrocket. Our perceptions shape how we interact with the world.

That kind of rationale further supports the position that we never should have invaded, in the first place. Kinda shoots that whole "Spreading Democracy" premise in the foot.

Aside from comments by the usual idiots (Coulter, Limbaugh et al), I missed where the Republican leadership did any of this. I thought the initial reaction was to get rid of Foley as soon as possible and to publicly condemn his behavior.

Cue Foghorn Leghorn: I say, I say there boy. We got a war on our hands. We can't to be bothered with no silly ole review nonsense. This is WAR. Don't go worrying your purty little head over such stuff. Just leave it all to me and my chickenhawks. We'll take care of everything.

This same research group released/published another study in October 2004 - just before the election. It claimed the number of "additional" deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion was 100,000. Oddly, that study was pretty much ignored by the media. With the number a Bush detractors out there, I couldn't help but wonder why that earlier study didn't get more coverage. Now, the same group has produced another study, claiming the number of "additional" deaths, since the US invasion, is over 655,000. Assuming both studies are correct, it looks like there were an additional 555,000 deaths (655,000-100,000=555,000) in the last two years. Another way to look at these two studies, in the first 18 months in Iraq, additional deaths averaged 67,000 per year. Since then, the rate has more than quadrupled. Iraq Body Count has approximately 24,000 deaths in the same period. This new study is 23 times higher. I'd be interested in hearing a reasonable explanation for these discrepancies.

With the change above, the same could be said for you... Here ya go: http://reality.edu/ You're a regular two trick pony... assert posters are out of touch with reality (while doing nothing to refute their points) or simply labelling them as a right wing idealogue. You go, girl.

I missed where anyone on this forum gave any indication they thought Foley's behavior was acceptable.

No. But they are examples of how people (read: politicians) have tried to spin acts of misconduct. I've yet to hear what laws Foley broke.

It's a pretty safe assumption that we've had character related problems in DC for quite some time. Examples, like the one you provided, definitely strengthen that assumption. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in government caught breaking the law should be fully prosecuted. It's the "string 'em up" vs. "what someone does in private is no one's business" posturing that annoys me.

No doubt, Bush is reaping what he sowed, on his handling of the invasion of Iraq. Seems to be standard fare these days for recently retired generals to offer up a healthy dose of criticism... justifiable criticism.

Do you have a source to support this claim? Actually, I think I just heard that one time. Please accept my apology for claiming something I can't back up. Here are a few stories I did find. Bear in mind that both sources lean right, particularly Jared Taylor. Please, feel free to show where his findings have been disproven. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3691 http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm

Forget trying to show them how lame it is to make hiostorical comparisons. In this political climate... with the far right claiming to be the moderates..it is impossible. 23 years ago there was a far different climate and social mores that was being touted as the norm..they are incapable of remembering those days... since they DO NOT WANT to remember those days.... For those of them that are old enough...they were the squares.... the ones who could not even get a date on Sat night. You are correct. "23 years ago there was a far different climate and social mores that was being touted as the norm" Back then, society was significantly less tolerant of sexual scandals... especially homosexual ones. This present drama is fueled by selective, partisan outrage.

I not sure where you've inferred that I have a "rigid, straight line support" of Bush. Was it when I said: "I'm fairly certain that the decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of a sitting US President." What does chap me is the frequent dishonest representations made by those who lean left. I did a google search for the quoted "lie" in the original post and got zero hits. So I asked for a source. I'm not sure why you think that is unreasonable.

Quotethe church... deliberately and systematically lies about their effectiveness in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.Quote This makes it sound like it's standard fare for Catholic ministries in Africa. It that true? Or are you relying on a few instances to paint with a broad brush?

Who cares if he overstated the cost by 200%. It's the principle of the thing.

You mean like espousing a "live and let live" philosophy and then abandoning it when convenient?

His point was Bush made claims that were consistent with the opinions of top Democrats, for the previous four years. Much like the Foley drama, this is a case of selective outrage. All along, while Bill, Hillary, Madeline, Kerry, Sandy, Nancy, Ted et al made claims of Saddam's capabilities - the standard response is "Oh. Okay. Thanks for the info". Then when Bush says the same thing, every one is crying Bush lied! Bush lied!!! That's the reality of the situation. Where does the buck stop? I suggest it stops in the office of the guy who used lies to justify wasting the lives of 2,700 American troops, maiming 20,000 others, and wasting about $1 trillion, and who clearly manipulated the intelligence available. Only Bush attempted to link 9/11 with SH. I'm fairly certain that the decision to invade Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest blunders of a sitting US President. But the cost (so far) does little to support the widely held belief that Bush intentionally lied to the American people about Saddam and his weapons. Speaking of cost - you pegged it at $1 trillion. Where'd you get that number? I though it was significantly less.

The only thing is, he didn't lie under oath about it. The then current definition of sexual relations did not include a BJ, hence he did not lie about it either. Why did he agree to pay Paula Jones $850,000, get disbarred (for 5 years) and fined over $90,000.00?

Could you provide a link. On this issue, the link you need is to reality. In other words - you got nothing.

Some members of his district applauded Studds. He was censured, and stripped of his committee chairmanship (which didn't have anything to do with protecting children). I wish this whole thing would go away. The problem is that with so many folks (mainly conservative) using this kind of behavior as a whipping rod against others, the sharks really come to feed when it comes back the other way. Kind of like how a minister who spends all his sermons railing about infidelity and how people who cheat on their spouses are going to hell gets more publicity when he's found to be getting some on the side, than a quiet minister who doesn't focus on the infidelity issue. People kind of like to use hypicrisy to skewer others who have been skewering. Wendy W. Excellent post, Wendy. Of course, this cuts both ways. Those people who wish the minister should just stay out of their personal lives are hypocrits, if they skewer him when his indiscretions are revealed.

You just can't help yourself. LOL

Really. You need to check your facts better: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=annointed+protector+of+youth&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=1w&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25 Right you are. With all these smug labels like arbiter of virtue party of family values party of personal responsibility annointed protector of youth ... getting tossed around, they all tend to run together. I think the overuse of loaded labels was mastered by Rush Limbaugh. He must be pleased that this smarmy tactic has such a wide appeal.

Resigned into rehab? LOL That's some fancy spin you got there, sport. This is from his resignation letter "“I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent.” Sounds pretty contrite to me. Here's a link on Stubbs. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/125952742.html?dids=125952742:125952742&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&fmac=&date=Aug+12%2C+1983&author=By+Sandra+Evans+Teeley+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=Studds+Gets+Standing+Ovations+At+First+Meeting+Since+Censure

He got the essence of what you said. Foley resigned in shame. Studds was applauded. I keep wonder which lefty blogger came up with: Annointed Protector of Youth Several of the posters around here seem to use it a lot.

His point was Bush made claims that were consistent with the opinions of top Democrats, for the previous four years. Much like the Foley drama, this is a case of selective outrage. All along, while Bill, Hillary, Madeline, Kerry, Sandy, Nancy, Ted et al made claims of Saddam's capabilities - the standard response is "Oh. Okay. Thanks for the info". Then when Bush says the same thing, every one is crying Bush lied! Bush lied!!! That's the reality of the situation.