Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast week, Congress authorized another $70 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq in 2007, with additional increases through 2009.
According to the National Priorities Project (NPP), $378 billion has already been spent or allocated for the Iraq war. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the economic costs of war, occupation, and related expenditures may reach $2 trillion – despite the Bush administration's promise that this conflict would cost $50 billion and its firing of its economic advisor for daring to estimate the cost between $100 to $200 billion. (The horrific human cost: more than 2,700 US soldiers and some 100,000 Iraqis killed since the US invasion in 2003.)
As NPP Research Director, Dr. Anita Dancs, testified at a congressional forum, $378 billion could pay for all of the following: health care coverage for all uninsured children during this entire war; four-year scholarships to a public university for all of this year's graduating seniors; construction of 500,000 affordable housing units; the Coast Guard's estimate on funds needed for port security; tripling the energy conservation budget in the US Department of Energy; and reducing this year's budget deficit by half.
But there are other costs to our nation too. They include the corrosion of our values, our constitution, and our reputation internationally. The passage of legislation on military detainees last week is believed by some scholars to be as destructive to our republic as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. (In fact, Charles Falconer, one of the highest-ranking justice officials in Britain, told the Washington Post that current US practices make it "harder to identify to the world what your values are.")
What makes these human, economic, and morals costs of the Iraq war even more infuriating is the Bush administration's messianic, "state of denial." As the recently released National Intelligence Estimate reveals, the war has transformed a relatively limited terrorist threat into a breeding ground for a new wave of extremist Islamic jihadism. NPP also points out that we are now less prepared at home for a natural disaster (as Hurricane Katrina demonstrated) or terrorist attack with our resources and troops stretched to the breaking point in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This administration had a misguided idea about building a shining city on a hill in Iraq and its own power to achieve it. What was truly needed then, as now, was international cooperation and a commitment to spreading our democratic values by force of successful example, not force of arms. This is far from a policy of retreat or isolationism, as "stay the course" (right off the cliff) adherents would have you believe. It means challenging the Bush administration – and too many Democratic leaders – who have bought into an over-militarized approach to terrorism. It means, in the end, being a global leader instead of a global cop.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Don't worry Katrina...if the dems take over the house, the first act will be to cut off funds for Iraq, bring home the troops in 1 week and then impeachment.
And then you will get a real definition of "horrific human cost" as you abandon the people of Iraq ...again... as Bush 1 did...but hey, look at all the money we will save...we can use it to repair our infra-structer when the suicide bombers come here and show you that whether or not we are in the middle east..they want to kill us anyway..becareful, as they nsay, you may get what you are demanding....
Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2006 @ 09:43am
maasch, you are always screaming about how the gov't takes your money. the fact that this gov't pours your money into Iraq, does not seem to concern you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 09:49am
John only partially right, of course...hehe
But MONEY is a problem for Dems once they re-take power. They've promised NO tax hikes, just repeals of the Bush cuts for the top 1%....and massive new social spending (health care, alternative energy)....and no "abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan" (not troops, but the aid)....AND "fiscal discipline and a return to deficit control".
And it don't add up.
If they go for more than repealing the tax cuts for the "super rich" and start hitting the middle class...it's 1994 all over again and Repubs take 2008. If they don't keep their promised spending, the base gets pissed (they expect their pay-off after a dozen years!). If they "cut and run" on aid to Iraq and Afghanistan, they under-cut their own views on foreign aid.
And if they keep spending like the Repubs have, with $350-450 billion deficits...the economy collapses as well as their credibility on being fiscally responsible.
Something's gotta give!
Posted by Mask at 10/04/2006 @ 09:51am
abandon the people of Iraq
I say let's abandon the people of Iraq, the torturing, murderous militias of Iraq, the puppet gov't of Iraq, let's abandon them too. the Shia's who do Iran's bidding, they should be abandoned too.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/04/2006 @ 09:52am
You know,
witnessing the fits and spasms of the media and a party enmeshed in a single scandal makes me start thinking of the potential for serious change that could occur (it won't, but the possibility is there) should the Dems take over and set off on impeachment proceedings. While the media is scurrying about and the GOPers are running for cover, the Dems, were they sufficiently organized, could push for some serious corrections of problems instituted by the current ruling party. Potentially they could even use impeachment as a bribe to ensure that rollbacks of failed Bush policies occur. It's a thought...and a pleasing one at that.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/05/2006 @ 10:38am
George Bush has his own personal fleet of mobile US Currency print mills. This vast, highly sophisticated fleet of "mobile US Currency printing mills", produces "$100 bricks", which are "fired" in rapid succession.
Sort of like they "fire" Americans - 32 now KILLED in the last week - 32 Americans KILLED in the last week. Scores of thousands of Americans seriously wounded because of George Bushs lies and the Conservatives who were all to eager to believe those lies. The Disaster in Iraq is the 100% sole property of Conservative Republicans who continue to support the slaughter. "You break it, you own it"
Posted by conshame at 10/05/2006 @ 10:44am
if the repubs lose House and Senate, it will be repubs who will impeach Bush, lest they lose again big time in 2008. you heard it here first.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/05/2006 @ 10:46am
johannes--
just tell maasch one of my all-time favorite steven wright one-liners:
"you can't have everything; where would you put it?"
this in reference to his anger about the government taking everything from him.
maasch will whine and complain until the day a wildfire inches towards his compound; or a criminal beats and rapes his offspring, and he needs the entire omaha police force working overtime; or he runs for public office, and the race is close, and he demands a re-count; or he needs that giant pot hole fixed in front of his compound; and on and on and on......
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2006 @ 10:48am
what's frightening is that there are actually people who would dispute the argument that the iraq war has drained vital funds from our federal budget.
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2006 @ 10:49am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/05/2006 @ 10:46am
Yes, because impeaching a President of their own party is the surest way back to power.
(shakes head in dis-belief!)
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 10:54am
Oh Maasch,
Iraqis will be too busy killing each other, as they are right now, to come over here, that will probably include the no more than 10% of the insurgents in Iraq who are foreigners and are hip-deep in this civil war. And please tell me how a US military pull-out is going to make things any worse. You simply insist on the delusion that our quagmire in Iraq is part of the struggle against Islamist militantcy.
Posted by brunowe at 10/05/2006 @ 11:21am
why are americans so worried about death? i mean, do people actually walk around all day long and think about dying in a terrorist attack? or from a nuclear bomb? or being suddenly knifed in the back by an "islamo-facist" (i love this term)?
it might actually be INTERESTING (because it would be so extraordinarily unlucky) to die in a plane hijacking. just think about it: no cancer, no old age aches and pains, no boring post-menopausal sex life, no taxes (!), none of that shit you have to deal with when you grow older.
you can die young, and move on. it's sounds so exciting.
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2006 @ 11:53am
Fear is a great motivator, no doubt. The biggest fear is losing power. All the other shit is just pushing people's hate buttons and getting them fired up.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/05/2006 @ 12:06pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/05/2006 @ 11:53am
Boy....she has lost it, hasn't she?
I mean there's the Fringe...the Fringe of the Fringe...and then DD.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 12:31pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/05/2006 @ 11:53am
Boy....she has lost it, hasn't she?
I mean there's the Fringe...the Fringe of the Fringe...and then DD.
Posted by MASK 10/05/2006 @ 12:31am | ignore this person
Mask,
I hope that you're joking. As you are well aware, I'm sure, the United States has the worst ranking of health for industrialized nations-more people die of preventable deaths (poverty-related) per year, thus making her playful comment quite relevant to the strange fixation Americans have with fear concerning the most unlikely causes of death: terrorism, murder from immigrants, sharks, etc.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/05/2006 @ 12:47pm
How much damage did this idiot war already do to us? And how much will it do in the future?
And the administration wants to take on Iran, as well?
Posted by ZERO 10/05/2006 @ 12:35am | ignore this person
Zero,
Unfortunately, the fuel that feeds our democractic system is big money and concentrated power- not grass roots, people-powered politics. We are too weak to compete for the attention of our representatives; this is why the democrats are so cowardly and fail to stand up to Bush and his crew. Talk of defending civil liberties and addressing crucial issues such as Global Warming are drowned out by the cliches of Conservatives working on behalf of the elites.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/05/2006 @ 1:07pm
I just read an article from Ari Berman that discussed the great hope for "progressives" in the form of big donors attempting to replicate the Conservative machine. One of the Democratic gurus defined American politics as consisting of "pragmatists vs grass roots organizers"--he is a pragmatist, ie., the same centrist loser willing to sell us out to institutionalized greed and corruption. No will to upset the rotten apple cart.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/05/2006 @ 1:15pm
Afghanistan could have been controlled, as well - without the Iraq war.
How much damage did this idiot war already do to us? And how much will it do in the future?
And the administration wants to take on Iran, as well?
Posted by ZERO 10/05/2006 @ 12:35am
Agree to a large degree, with the exception that I am not convinced that our current administration could have been relied on to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, al Qaida, and any other sponsor of terrorism even if they had an attention span greater than a puppy. The relatively quick return to fundamentalist control and violence that has taken place in eastern Afghanistan is a reminder that western powers crumble when faced with the intensity of the Afghan/Pakistani tribal wars and the terrain of the uncontrolled "agencies" in that zone.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/05/2006 @ 1:36pm
and the best we can get is the Pervert Follies?
Posted by ZERO 10/05/2006 @ 1:18pm |
Too many exaggerate the importance of the individual against the larger society, thus allowing for the emphasis of Personal Politics at the expense of the substantive and contextual issues plaguing our society.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/05/2006 @ 1:37pm
hsuB's solution as distraction from: allowing a predator at our kids in congress, all our sons and daughters dying in a needless Iraq occupation, strangers just walking into our schools and killing our children, is to:
SCOTTSDALE, Arizona (AP) -- President Bush tried to drown out political anxieties about war and sex Wednesday by sounding alarm bells on national security and urging people to "vote Republican for the safety" of the country.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2006 @ 1:39pm
Bush 41 against hsuB:
Address by President George H. W. Bush at the Celebration of the Day of German Unity at the German Ambassador's Residence in Washington, DC
October 3, 2006
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
So as we pause and reflect on the events in question, I hope this is an occasion visited by satisfaction that our alliance, our political leaders, and most importantly, our people were equal to the historic challenge laid before them.
The point has frequently been made that the 20th Century was the bloodiest in history, and there is no disputing that all war, all bloodshed, is born of human failure.
Yet, if upon reflecting on the hopeful events leading to October 3rd, I hope future generations might look to that period as a time when mankind got it right – when we rose above the recriminations of the past, and broke a chain of human discontent, and resolved our affairs not with rifles, but with reason. For once, mankind did not fall back on a primeval reflex for violence, but instead asserted the "better angels" of human nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/05/2006 @ 12:55am
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2006 @ 1:42pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/05/2006 @ 1:36pm |
The goals of the Conservatives are just not compatible with the interests of the majority, both domestically or in Afganistan. The shared goal of overthrowing a destructive regime like the Taliban may be in the interests of the people of that region and the Bush administration (short term), but once the intitial military goal is achieved the Bush crew reverts to their stale playbook of corporatism and militarism. The people will suffer as crony capitalism loots the national resources while the people starve and grow disenchanted with the inefficiencies/contradictions of American "free market" policies.
Posted by Oustbush at 10/05/2006 @ 1:55pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/05/2006 @ 1:36pm
See, that is the argument I REMEMBER from 2001-2002, that all the "I supported Afghanistan as did 99% of America, just not going into Iraq" folks on the Left seem to have forgotten.
I REMEMBER "The Brits lost there, the Russians lost there, WE will lose there" before the invasion.
Yet NOW, "everybody" was onboard for going into a country with "the intensity of the Afghan/Pakistani tribal wars and the terrain of the uncontrolled "agencies" in that zone."
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 2:09pm
from FAIR:
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS's flagship news program, touts its "signature style-low-key, evenhanded, inclusive of all perspectives"; Corporation for Public Broadcasting ombud Ken Bode called it "the mother ship of balance." But a new FAIR study finds that the NewsHour fails to provide either balance or diversity of perspectives-or a true public-minded alternative to its corporate competition.
Public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources. General public-"person in the street," workers, students- accounted for only 14 percent, while current and former government and military officials totaled 50 percent of all sources.
Male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 (82 percent to 18 percent). Moreover, 72 percent of U.S. guests were white males, while just 6 percent were women of color.
People of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources. African-Americans made up 9 percent, Latinos 2 percent, and Asian- Americans and people of Mideastern descent made up one percent each. Alberto Gonzales accounted for more than 30 percent of Latino sources, while Condoleeza Rice accounted for nearly 13 percent of African-American sources.
Among partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent). Only one representative of a third party appeared during the study period. At a time when a large proportion of the U.S. public already favored withdrawal from Iraq, "stay the course" sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1. In the entire six months studied, not a single peace activist was heard on the NewsHour on the subject of Iraq.
Segments on Hurricane Katrina accounted for less than 10 percent of all sources, but provided nearly half (46 percent) of all African-American sources during the study period. Those African-Americans were largely presented as victims rather than leaders or experts: In segments on the human impact of the storm, African-Americans made up 51 percent of sources, but in reconstruction segments, whites dominated with 72 percent of sources; 59 percent of all African-American sources across Katrina segments were general public sources.
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2006 @ 2:26pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/05/2006 @ 2:26pm
OH MY GOD.....
PBS is "right-wing media"!!!! Poor Jim Lehrer....no better than O'Reilly!
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 3:12pm
WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT? October 4, 2006
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al-Qaida -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
-- Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.
-- Priests: No gays!
-- Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
-- Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
-- White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
-- Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
-- Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
Posted by looneylefties at 10/05/2006 @ 3:39pm
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX
CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY **World Exclusive** **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.
The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.
The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.
The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.
Developing...
Posted by looneylefties at 10/05/2006 @ 3:41pm
OUSTBUSH.....12:47pm
DARLA is talking about how we should all croak at a young age...
and you're asking if "I" am joking?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 3:47pm
Mask, Liberals supported going into Afghanistan, getting rid of Osama Bin Laden, getting rid of Al Qaida, then leaving Afghanistan with aid conditional on controlling the terrorists. Liberals did not support creating an Operation Iraqi Disaster style mess in Afghanistan.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/05/2006 @ 3:48pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 10/05/2006 @ 3:48pm
LP, so under Gore, for instance, TJ would be wrong about this....?
"Afghanistan is a reminder that western powers crumble when faced with the intensity of the Afghan/Pakistani tribal wars and the terrain of the uncontrolled "agencies" in that zone."
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/05/2006 @ 1:36pm
In the whole, you're right, liberals (mostly the politicians) HAD to atleast pay some lip service to supporting going into Afghanistan....do to otherwise in the months following 9/11 would have been suicidal.
But the true liberal spirit wasn't DEAD...there were anti-war groups that opposed invading Afghanistan...Do YOU not remember "The Brits lost there....etc"?
and in recent months they have resurrected themselves....
not with "It COULD have been won if we hadn't gone into Iraq", but "The Taliban offered bin Laden to us, we didn't NEED to go into Afghanistan" and "It's just going back the way it was...even NATO troops can't stop that!"
Oh sure, the "we're just as tough on national security" guys push the "Pull out of Iraq, put the troops in Afghanistan where they can actually do some good" line.
But if we do...and it goes "Iraq" and Kabul starts losing people like Baghdad does now (Nothing stopping a "Taliban insurgency"...is there?)...."Murtha-II" for Afghanistan will become the motto.
There's nothing wrong with the views of the anti-war movement or the liberal position on going into either of those two countries....but there is a bit of dishonesty about who supported what and when and would support something else.
To deny a STRONG GENERIC pacifist movement on the Left is just not true.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 4:18pm
Ah Loony - up to your old shenannigans. I'm curious, on how many threads of this website, and on how many websites overall, have you cut and pasted the same two articles by Ann Coulter and the Druge Report?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/05/2006 @ 4:40pm
ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER
FAMOUS IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
**UPDATE Thu Oct 05 2006 11:54:13 ET
A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.
The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.
MORE
The PASSIONATE AMERICA webmaster tells the OKLAHOMAN that "he stumbled onto the former page's AOL screen name when looking at transcripts of the instant messages on ABC's Web site on Saturday. He said he typed a slightly-different Web address into his browser and found a version of the transcript with the screen name.
The AOL name of the young man was kept unredacted and housed on ABCNEWS.COM servers for 5 days!
The information could be publicly accessed.
ABC explains in a statement: "On Friday, ABC News published instant messages between a former page and Congressman Foley with the IM screen name of the teenage victim redacted. Immediately, we discovered that in one instance, the screen name of the teen on one IM exchange had not been properly redacted. ABC News immediately took down the posting [version 1], redacted the screen name and re-published the posting [version 2]. We certainly believed that we had taken care of the issue quickly. Last evening, after an inquiry from Matt Drudge, it came to our attention that a blogger was able to access our deleted file [version 1] by typing in a slightly modified web address. To be clear, no one visiting our website would have simply stumbled on the old version."
SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."
ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
Developing...
Posted by looneylefties at 10/05/2006 @ 5:24pm
I have no idea if LIBERALPRIDE is correct in the assertion that "Liberals supported going into Afghanistan, getting rid of Osama Bin Laden, getting rid of Al Qaida, then leaving Afghanistan with aid conditional on controlling the terrorists." It is a vague assertion, unclear about who is going into Afghanistan: our military or something else.
This liberal never supported sending the military to Afghanistan because, as with Iraq, there was no clear military strategy or benefit from taking over the country. While it made sense to me that Bush would f-up the job, as he had done any other decision he had made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, I was a little surprised that he thought he could establish a peaceful ally by knocking out a government that itself did not have control of its entire country. Especially since he sent such a tiny little force, apparently in the belief that three professional football players can beat an entire team of college players simply because they are better trained and equipped.
We had one major problem with Afghanistan--it was the purported home of bin Laden--and a few minor problems with it--that it was an oppressive regime that was cruel to women and centuries-old Buddhist art alike. While it would be nice to think that Bush had the power to take the frowny face that sits on top of Afghanistan in his World Map of Good Countries and Evil Countries and turn it into a smiley face, it was always beside the point. Make a little deal with the Taliban (Bush was already dealing with them) to try to extract the tall man from the mountains. Once bin Laden was ours, if we wanted to try to make Afghanistan that shining example of Islamic democracy the neo-cons dream of, well...I don't know, still sounds stupid. But at least we could have tried to take care of first things first.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/05/2006 @ 6:00pm
i love cnn's new australian baghdad correpondent. nice stuff on dr. rice's visit, says she's "so divorced from reality"
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-WARE-IraqRice-Bubble.wmv
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2006 @ 6:42pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/05/2006 @ 6:00pm
Apparently TJ....you don't exist.
According to LP (and other "We're just as tough on terrorism, we just wanted to do it differently" types like Al Franken et al)....there were NO liberals that opposed going into Afghanistan.
Essentially, you and the others were flushed down the "memory hole" and the "NewHist" is that the Left supported Afghanistan, just not Iraq!
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 7:51pm
MASK,
First, I checked: pulse, fogging up a mirror in front of my face, able to manipulate matter such as a keyboard. So, rumors of my extinction are overblown.
Second, LP said "liberals did this and that". This does not mean "all liberals did this and that" or "no liberals did not do this or that", as any graduate of a fifth grade grammar class can explain to you. It could imply "some" as the indefinite article we should insert.
But no matter. If liberal is not a tag which applies to me, then I gladly accept any other word. Pinhead, philistine, caveman, pinko, devil spawn, grass eater, dreamer, fool, fascist, gurlyman...anything but Republican or Democrat.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/05/2006 @ 8:12pm
And you can also call me grammatically challenged. Who typed "article" instead of "pronoun"? Maybe I am dead and something else is using my keyboard.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/05/2006 @ 8:13pm
Tjb - exactly - Liberals supported going after Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice, Liberals did not support turning Afghanistan or Iraq into Disasters.
See, Mask wants to make it like, if you didnt support a Disaster, that means you didnt support going after Osama Bin Laden. Republicans are dishonest people and they use such debate tactics. The fact is, turning Iraq and Afghanistan into Disasters on a grand scale, had nothing to do with bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. Iraq is a Disaster, Afghanistan is a Disaster, and Conservatives are running around claiming they know for a FACT that Osama Bin Laden is in a cave - mere lies. America is fed up with the lies, the stealing, the slaughter, the perversion.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/05/2006 @ 9:03pm
There are absolutely zero Liberals in America who were against going after Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. Not one single Liberal ever opposed bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.
So what if Mask or some other Conservative defender of the idiot out of Texas, WISHES to conflate support for a Disaster, with support for bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.
Only Conservatives are that stupid - there are NO intelligent people in the world who equate supporting a Disaster, with bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. They are two DIFFERENT things. The Disaster in Iraq is not the same thing as bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. The Disaster in Afghanistan is not the same thing as bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/05/2006 @ 9:14pm
In the last 7 days, 47 Americans KILLED as a result of the Disaster in Iraq alone - not counting the Disaster in Afghanistan. Scores and scores of Americans seriously wounded. Dead, tortured Iraqis just piling up in the streets.
No - support for the Disaster in Iraq has NOTHING to do with support for catching Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. Conservatives merely CLAIM, without any evidence, that Osama Bin Laden is in a cave.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/05/2006 @ 9:19pm
Mask has demonstrated what is wrong with Conservative Republicans.
Mask cant tell the difference between supporting a Disaster, and bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. That is what is wrong with Republicans.
Tell a Republican President, "Go get Osama Bin Laden, and bring him to justice". Then - just like Mask, just like Mask has demonstrated, that Republican President will say, "Yes sir, I am going straightaway to start up a Disaster in Iraq, and a Disaster in Afghanistan".
See, Republicans cant tell the difference. You say, "I support your going after and getting Osama Bin Laden", and they hear "I support your starting a Disaster that America wont recover from for decades".
47 Americans KILLED in the last week in Iraq ALONE, scores SERIOUSLY wounded - not to catch Osama Bin Laden - everyone supports catching Osama Bin Laden. Liberals support catching Osama Bin Laden, Conservatives support a Disaster. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/05/2006 @ 9:53pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/05/2006 @ 8:12pm
LP, said "Liberals" not "most", not "a lot", not "a majority"...just liberals.
As if I said "Horses eat grass", now, I SUPPOSE you can assume that there are some horses that don't eat grass....but making a declarative statement like that USUALLY implies "no or few exceptions".
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 10:20pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 10/05/2006 @ 9:53pm
But, I presume....DID you mean "most liberals"?
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2006 @ 10:21pm
so ... you presume eh/
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 10/05/2006 @ 10:37pm
Posted by MASK 10/05/2006 @ 10:20pm
Sometimes I am in awe of your substantiveness, but there is little else to talk about on this site.
Waiting for more threads not related to how the GOP is handling their system for protecting congressmen who don't receive satisfaction from their teen pages...
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/05/2006 @ 10:44pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/05/2006 @ 2:26pm
OH MY GOD.....
PBS is "right-wing media"!!!! Poor Jim Lehrer....no better than O'Reilly!
Posted by MASK 10/05/2006 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person
Darla, I just carefully read your 2:26pm post and I can't quite find the your words that Mask is quoting...PBS is "right-wing media"!!!! Poor Jim Lehrer....no better than O'Reilly!
Can you please show me where you said that Darla? I'd really hate to think that this is YET ANOTHER case of Mask dishonestly putting his words into someone elses mouth.
he he!
Posted by Lillian at 10/05/2006 @ 11:27pm
And let's not foget that, at the same time the R's are committing $2 trillion dollars to the quagmire, they are ALSO happily cutting taxes...because that's how best to pander to their base!
And of course they'll scream bloody murder if the D's ever try raise taxes to fix the financial mess they've created.
Posted by Lillian at 10/05/2006 @ 11:40pm
Darla,
"you can't have everything; where would you put it?"
this in reference to his anger about the government taking everything from him.
maasch will whine and complain until the day a wildfire inches towards his compound; or a criminal beats and rapes his offspring, and he needs the entire omaha police force working overtime; or he runs for public office, and the race is close, and he demands a re-count; or he needs that giant pot hole fixed in front of his compound; and on and on and on...... "
Lets see...we will number these for simplicity..
1. I have everything I need and want..and my garage still has room...ie, I am satisfied for the most part.
2. I am not angry that government takes everything..I am angry people like you want them too do so and feel you have a right, as you pay nothing.(stealing)
3. I don't have a compound..only rich Dems like Kennedy and Kerry do...I have a house with a fire dept on call near by.
4. If a criminal attempts to hurt, rape or beat my offspring and I am able, I will shoot him in the head with my legal, 2nd ammendment given gun, and the call the police..after he dies. If I am unable , I will contact the Lincoln Police, as I don't live anywhere near OMAHA...and I will also hire private guys to find them and I will deal with them if the system does not. No technicalities or excuses,..." you must understand, my mom didn't love me and Dad left.." Sorry, bang is all you will hear before lights out.
5. I would not stand for election, would not accept my name being placed in nomination and will not serve....I am not qualified.(see Sherman)..also will not accept the pay cut.
6. I have actually filled in my own pot hole near my house after watching the union city workers(5 of them) take all day and have it come apart 3 months later...my patch is still there.
6. I don't believe in recounts unless it involves my change...
and last, but not least,..
I am relatively happy...sorry...
Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2006 @ 12:13am
And, Darla, you are a very strange person, indeed....which is fine with me...you fit very well here in the, ah.. "great middle",...he,he(like Mask)
Posted by john maasch at 10/06/2006 @ 12:14am
As hsuB goes, so goes the repub leadership-- as is only appropriate...
PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls
Survey________Date___Approve__Disapprove__Unsure__minus
Time________10/3-4/06____36_______57_______7______-21
AP-Ipsos_____10/2-4/06____38_______59_______3______-21
Pew________9/21-10/4/06__37_______53_______10_____-16
NBC/Wall Street Journal RV
___________9/30 - 10/2/06__39______56_______5______-17
CNN_______9/29 - 10/2/06__39______59_______2______-20
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/05/2006 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/06/2006 @ 12:48am
Heard an interesting point concerning the old projection of 'we'll stand down as they stand up', but what about if they have to stand down and not up.... Er, then what?
Iraqi Police Unit Removed For Links to Militias
Iraqi Police Unit Is Reportedly Taken Out of Service for 'Complicity' With Militias
By DAVID RISING
BAGHDAD, Iraq Oct 4, 2006 (AP)-- Iraqi authorities have taken a police brigade out of service and returned them to training because of "complicity" with death squads in the wake of a mass kidnapping in Baghdad this week, a U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id= 2525978&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/06/2006 @ 01:29am
there's nothing like a few police supported death squads, roaming the streets of iraq to warm the conservative heart.
I guess christmas came early for them this year
Posted by Will C. at 10/06/2006 @ 08:35am
I wish the folks on this discussion group would stop flaming each other and picking apart each other's posts long enough to give some serious thought to the issue of how we are going to extricate ourselves from Iraq.
Iraq was put together by the European powers in the aftermath of World War I out of three provinces of the defeated Ottoman Empire. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, both dissolved now, were other unsustainable, Great Power creations of that era.
Being an artificial creation, Iraq was only held together by an extreme military dictatorship. Instead of trying to force Iraq into a shape that it will not hold, the United States could play a significant role in the emergence of a very loose confederation of Iraqi regions, and let each region take care of itself.
We could support a regional security conference that included the three regions of Iraq plus Syria, Turkey, Iran and the Gulf States, in which all the parties would guarantee the territorial integrity of all the other parties. I doubt very seriously that we, or any of the other players, are going to be able to shoot our way out of this complex mess.
The above idea about the regionalization or partition of Iraq has been put forward by many thoughtful people, but it does not serve the partisan temper of our time, which is primarily concerned with making oneself look good and one's opponents look bad. For the sake of all the people who have suffered in Iraq in the last four years, lets give some thought to what the people of that region might need. It would help us find a sustainable way out.
Posted by dennisrivers at 10/06/2006 @ 09:04am
Posted by LILLIAN 10/05/2006 @ 11:27pm
Can somebody else help me out with an analogy?
I'm looking for a DIFFERENT one for obsessive psychosis, besides referencing Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction"....anybody got something as good?
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2006 @ 09:28am
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/05/2006 @ 10:44pm
TJ, apparently "Foley-gate" will be the "decisive issue" for 2006.
Not Iraq, "culture of corruption", deficits, health care....you know, all that boring stuff, but a nice juicy sex scandal
My faith in both the Republican and Democratic Parties' cynicism has been restored.
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2006 @ 09:32am
I'm looking for a DIFFERENT one for obsessive psychosis, besides referencing Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction"....anybody got something as good?
Posted by MASK 10/06/2006 @ 09:28am
Mask blogging at the Nation.
Posted by Will C. at 10/06/2006 @ 9:48pm
that's really good
Posted by Will C. at 10/06/2006 @ 9:48pm
Posted by WILL C. 10/06/2006 @ 9:48pm | ignore this person
How about "Maasch trying to count to 7"
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/06/2006 @ 12:13am | ignore this person
That was pretty good too! Especially since his second number "6" concerned "I don't believe in recounts..."
Priceless!!!
Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2006 @ 12:15am
Forget "recounts"...apparently Maasch doesn't believe in "counts"...if it gets past the fingers on one hand plus one other "mystery appendage"...
LOL!!!
Posted by Lillian at 10/07/2006 @ 12:18am