Friday, October 06, 2006

Drudge's "Prank Gone Awry" Story Labeled "Fiction" By Page's Lawyer

Matt Drudge's "report" yesterday sounded so pleasing to desperate conservative ears:

DRUDGE: 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, said he 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. ...

And conservatives ran with the story. Suddenly, conservatives were running over one another to say that the entire Foley scandal was just a giant prank, and wouldn't Democrats look silly once the truth came out.

The story never made any sense, of course. Foley (R-FL) wouldn't have resigned because of a prank. The Republican leadership wouldn't have created a circular firing squad over a prank. The House Ethics Committee wouldn't have issued 48 subpoenas because of a prank. Republicans far and wide wouldn't have started calling for House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) to step down over a prank.

And lo and behold, it became clear the "prank gone awry" story was just another conservative myth -- just another unsubstantiated tale from the fantasyland known as the Drudge Report.

According to the Oklahoman: Edmund's attorney, Stephen Jones, disputed as “a piece of fiction” a report on a widely viewed Internet site, Drudge Report, that Edmund’s exchanges with Foley were a prank by the page.

“There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way,” Jones said.

Should we be surprised that Drudge would post falsehoods?

Don't forget, while most conservative pundits were dredging up lurid tales of Democrats from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, it was Drudge who decided to blame the victims:

DRUDGE: You‘re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. The kids are egging the congressman on.

Just another conservative myth from the fantasyland known as Drudge Report.

84 Comments:

Anonymous tridim said...

Is this an opportunity to take Drudge down?
Everyone has a right to free speech, but nobody has a right to make up the news and call it free speech.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous joefree1 said...

Another Pudge fantasy for repukes fades away
I say let him die by a thousand cuts. His web site has become a joke. Ignore him.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous DemocratSinceBirth said...

Isn't it ironic that the poster boy for conservative blogging is an unconvincing closeted gay person.

I can't imagine what demons possess someone like that. Perhaps he was inseminated by the ghost of Roy Cohn.

What slime.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Spazito said...

Drudge was just "catapulting" Limbaugh's "pondering"
Drudge can't even be original in his lying crap, no surprise though. Pathetic doesn't come close to describing him and Viagra man.

12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

do you think the "friends" of edmund that Drudge refers to actually exist? Or do you think he just called up the Stuckey's in Edmund's hometown and asked if anyone thought it was a prank, and two yahoos said "Sure"?

12:01 PM  
Anonymous Spazito said...

LOL, well, seeing as they have a habit of pulling things out of their asses in terms of lies, I suspect the unnamed "friends" are from the same ass they pulled the other lies from.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous DURHAM D said...

Very interesting - thanks for posting. BTW - I noticed that the attorney retained by the Oklahoma page is Stephen Jones.

Jones was Tim McVeigh's attorney. Jones is the guy who during an interview said that Tim should not have been put down because more people were involved in the OKC bombing and we could never get to the bottom of the matter with Tim dead.

Also, Brownie worked in the Jones law firm (for a little while) in Oklahoma and in a post Katrina interview Jones basically indicated that he thought Brownie was completely inappropriate to be the FEMA director. Read that - he was stupid and we fired him.

Small world.

12:23 PM  
Anonymous mtnester said...

IMO, Matt Drudge is a self loathing loner and is being used by the Repubs...psycologically, they welcomed an outsider in, fed him tidbits and sweets, make him feel like part of the "gang" and rely on him to dutifully put out their talking points or spin. He is now their DOG. Too bad he does not see that yet, and maybe never will.

Mark my words, Matt Drudge does not sit around writing this stuff...he is briefed and material is sent to him....straight from "some" Republicans.

Nothing worse than a self-loathing hater....and someone who speaks pretty loud about something that maybe hits a little too close to home.

12:23 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"And conservatives ran with the story. Suddenly, conservatives were running over one another to say that the entire Foley scandal was just a giant prank, and wouldn't Democrats look silly once the truth came out.


I have to say, that's quite a distortion of what it is that conservatives are saying, David.

I certainly have never said, and I have not heard any prominent conservative talk show hosts try to say, that the entire Foley scandal was just some big prank. That would imply that we didn't believe that Foley actually wrote those IMs or something.

Nobody is denying Foley's part in this scandal, or saying that he was not at fault. Once Republican leaders were made aware of the sexually explicit IMs, Foley was given the boot within the hour.

David R. Mark said...
"The story never made any sense, of course."


In truth, the story made perfect sense, David, because it finally explained how and why somebody would have saved their private IMs for all those years.

If Edmund, a Republican, shared these IM's with his friends either by e-mail and/or hard copy, it's easy to see how they might have eventually ended up in the hands of someone whose politics were different from Edmund's, to be made public at the most politically devastating time posible for the Republicans, which is....right about now. What a coincidence!

So if you feel that this story makes no sense, David, perhaps you will offer your own hypothesis, one which will provide as plausible a theory as the one Drudge laid out. Hmmmmm?

And I would just add, after reading these pathetic, mean little comments made by these pathetic mean little lib posters, that it doesn't appear that you have half a brain among you. What the hell do any of your inane posts add to this debate? You're a sad bunch of hateful losers.

12:40 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, perhaps you should look at the comments made by Widget and others. Or go to Free Republic or Little Green Footballs. Or listen to some of the callers into the various conservative radio shows last night.

There was a conclusion, suddenly, that the whole thing was made up. I have to figure that's what David is referring to.

BTW, before you criticize "pathetic" liberal posters, how about taking a look at some of your Mark Levin friends, like liberalism is treason, because most of the things they said were pure venom.

12:49 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

So if you feel that this story makes no sense, David, perhaps you will offer your own hypothesis, one which will provide as plausible a theory as the one Drudge laid out. Hmmmmm?

Wow! Got us there! Because we aren't giving a theory, Drudge is right! (clunk)

Drudge didn't lay out a theory, Trinity. Drudge reported this as fact, and as it turns out, nobody has come forward to confirm it, and several have come forward to deny it. It's not a theory, it's a falsehood.


And I would just add, after reading these pathetic, mean little comments made by these pathetic mean little lib posters, that it doesn't appear that you have half a brain among you. What the hell do any of your inane posts add to this debate? You're a sad bunch of hateful losers.

Waaah. Liberals are meanies. Waaaah.

12:50 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Once Republican leaders were made aware of the sexually explicit IMs, Foley was given the boot within the hour.

>>

Not exactly true. Hastert said that he didn't have time to talk to Foley before his resignation, then told Rush that he asked for Foley's resignation. ABC News and others have suggested the former storyline is true.

That would mean Foley resigned -- not given the boot.

And regardless, let's go back to the Bay Buchanan comment, "where there's smoke, you have to see if there's fire." Simply asking Foley to stop wasn't enough. Simply assuming that the only problem was inappropriate e-mails is naive and wrong.

That's why people are upset. It's the compounded problem of Foley, and the lack of effort from the Republican leadership over at least the last few months, and if you believe Fordham, the last two-plus years.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

DemocratSinceBirth said...
"Isn't it ironic that the poster boy for conservative blogging is an unconvincing closeted gay person."


How utterly without class you are. I can easily believe that you are, as your name suggests, a Democrat since birth. :P

It's a very typical, liberal thing to do, outing gays who do not wish to be outed. As a matter of fact, Dems on Capitol Hill are currently trying to push a list of Republican gay lawmakers and staffers, with the intent to out them, hoping it might rile up those on the extreme right and suppress voter turnout. Real classy, eh? Your type of people!

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

where did you hear that, from Mark Levin?

12:57 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"There was a conclusion, suddenly, that the whole thing was made up. I have to figure that's what David is referring to."


Well, I'm reading a lot of the same things you're reading, rob, but I haven't seen anyone come out and state that they believed that Foley didn't write these IMs, did you? If so, please copy and paste those comments here so I can see them too.

Also, besides Edmund, weren't there other former pages who exchanged IMs with Foley? I'm not referring to the e-mails with the 16 year old. I'm referring to the sexually explicit IMs.

So, as I said, I haven't seen where conservatives are denying that Foley was responsible for writing what he did. They're just saying that at least one former page, Jordan Edmund, may have been having a little "fun" playing on the affections of a man he knew was a closet gay, and then yukking it up with his pals by sharing those salacious IMs with them.

Now, for those of you who agree with JABBS that this "prank" story has been somehow proven false, could you please point me to some fact that might convince me of that?

Or are we simply accepting as gospel Sephen Jones' word for it? Where on earth has he offered proof that Drudge was wrong in what he reported? Help me out here. Did I miss something? Or are you all truly without a mind of your own that is capable of independent thought? Sure looks like it from where I am sitting. It appears that you are simply all appealing to authority, viz. Edmund's lawyer. Show me where I'm mistaken.

1:14 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Well, I'm reading a lot of the same things you're reading, rob, but I haven't seen anyone come out and state that they believed that Foley didn't write these IMs, did you?>>

No, but listening to talk radio yesterday, I heard three or four callers offer the Drudge thing as proof this whole story was ridiculous, or was just something the Democrats had schemed, and that the "prank" story would blow up in the Democrats' faces.

And the host just "uh-huhed" it each time, as if to confirm what the caller said was true.

At night, I can pick up a half dozen of these shows on the AM, and like I said, I heard this refrain three or four times in about a 30-minute drive.

1:29 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"BTW, before you criticize "pathetic" liberal posters, how about taking a look at some of your Mark Levin friends, like liberalism is treason, because most of the things they said were pure venom."


Rob, look at the hundreds or thousands of hateful/nasty posts that have been made here on JABBS over the years by libs.

Now compare that number to those made by my MLF friends. Who made the vast majority of them? Libs, right? Yet I don't think I ever saw one person here ever call another lib on their hateful rhetoric.

Yet I'm supposed to denounce the angry or nasty words that other conservatives might post here occasionally in response to the constant hate that is spewed on JABBS? Is that yet another double standard that liberals use?

I'm responsible for my posts, and my posts alone. If I see comments that I think are illogical or hateful, I reserve the right to say so. Naturally, you enjoy that same privilege. :)

1:29 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Now, for those of you who agree with JABBS that this "prank" story has been somehow proven false, could you please point me to some fact that might convince me of that?

>>

Sheesh, Trinity. The boy's lawyer said it's false. No one in authority has said it's true.

The only people suggesting it's true are Drudge, and a few of the radio talkers (and/or their fans).

How about showing some proof that what Drudge said is true?

1:30 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Now, for those of you who agree with JABBS that this "prank" story has been somehow proven false, could you please point me to some fact that might convince me of that?
What proof do you have that what Drudge is reporting is true? On one side, you've got his attorney saying it's not a prank and denying the story. On the other, you've got 2 unnamed sources saying it was a prank and offering no other proof of it. At best, you've got a he-said she-said tale, but one side is anonymous AND, more importantly, has no evidence. While sometimes anonymous sources are used for a reason, that's usually when they have some material evidence to offer -- but these 2 have no material evidence to offer, and they're not the primary actor in this situation, either, and they're unnamed to boot, which means they fail the credibility test several times over. And since there are other pages out there independent of this, Drudge's story is a moot point as it is, which makes it more or less just subterfuge.

1:33 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Now compare that number to those made by my MLF friends. Who made the vast majority of them? Libs, right? Yet I don't think I ever saw one person here ever call another lib on their hateful rhetoric.
>>

If you're looking at raw numbers, you might be right. But since liberals have traditionally outnumbered conservatives on this blog -- as would be expected, given it's a liberal blog -- that doesn't mean as much.

As a percentage of overall posters, I'd say that the MLF posters are far more mean-spirited than the liberals.

If you actually counted up the comments from Liberalism is treason, whatmeworry (sp?), widget and the like, I'll bet you'd find that at least 75% of the comments -- and maybe much more -- include some sort of name calling, a put down against another poster, a sweeping hyperbolic (and almost always false) statement against "libtards" or "libs," and/or a purposeful and disingenous misinterpretation of either the original JABBS post or what another commenter said.

That suggests one of two things:

1) The MLF in general cannot handle serious discussions
2) The MLF in general have poor reading comprehension skills.

I'm not joking, Trinity. You make an effort for the most part to have a reasonable discussion. You argue fervently, and I appreciate that. I don't agree with much of what you say, but I give you credit for trying to debate the subject matter at hand.

But most of the MLF seem to be limited to a theme of "liberals are treaonous liars, and I don't have to provide a shred of evidence to back that up."

And that leads me to this question: Does Mark Levin lead reasonable conservatives to become unreasonable, like Liberalism Is Treason, or are unreasonable conservatives somehow drawn to Mark Levin? :)

1:37 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Sheesh, Trinity. The boy's lawyer said it's false. No one in authority has said it's true."


Sheesh, rob! The man's a lawyer! He's been hired by a kid who thinks he might have to defend his actions somewhere down the line. The FBI and the Justice Department are investigating the matter. Just because Stephen Jones has declared Drudge's reporting as "a piece of fiction", you are accepting it out of hand, with no proof whatsoever. Why? Because the man's a lawyer??? That's called appealing to authority, in case you didn't know.

Again, here's what Drudge reported:

DRUDGE: 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, said he 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. ...


So how do you or Jones know that what Drudge is reporting is not true? Are you saying that Drudge's sources are wrong? And if so, then how can you possibly know that to be true? I'm confused. Were you shown proof that Drudge is wrong?

1:43 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Drudge didn't lay out a theory, Trinity. Drudge reported this as fact, and as it turns out, nobody has come forward to confirm it, and several have come forward to deny it. It's not a theory, it's a falsehood."


So you're another one who knows something I don't know, Dave G.? You know that it's a "falsehood"? And you know this how, exactly?

I don't think we even know who Drudge's sources are, do we? There are several investigations going on. Don't you think we should wait until all of the facts come out before we start calling people liars?

Who are these "several" people who have come out and denied the story that Drudge reported? Besides the lawyer I mean?

1:49 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

So how do you or Jones know that what Drudge is reporting is not true?
How do we know it IS true? There's no other evidence than this person's anonymous word. He just says, "Because I said so." Besides, if you read the 9-page exchange on ABC, it's clear Foley is the one egging the other guy on, not the other way around (of cousre this doesn't mean there aren't other correspondences with this person. But just the same, the available evidence doesn't point to this.)

Are you saying that Drudge's sources are wrong? And if so, then how can you possibly know that to be true?
We don't. But do you know the opposite?

Were you shown proof that Drudge is wrong?
Were you shown proof that he is right? Where does it exist?

1:55 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"No, but listening to talk radio yesterday, I heard three or four callers offer the Drudge thing as proof this whole story was ridiculous, or was just something the Democrats had schemed, and that the "prank" story would blow up in the Democrats' faces."


Again, since you can't be specific, it's difficult to respond.

From everything I've heard so far, everyone believes that Foley was responsible for writing those IMs. Now whether or not Edmund was intentionally playing with Foley, or was IMing with him for no special reason, remains to be seen.

As far as what the callers said about the Democrats' role in this, that is an entirely different issue entirely.

I take it that you do not believe that there are Democrat operatives that somehow got a hold of these IMs and sat on them until the time was ripe to stick it to the Republicans? Would you care to go on record as having rejected that idea?

2:01 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Don't you think we should wait until all of the facts come out before we start calling people liars?
Sure. But we could also try to avoid getting caught up in minutiae when you consider that even if this was a prank -- and I still think it's not -- there are other pages who had similar conversations. Were they all pranks? And what's the point of this line of discussion anyway? Foley still did what he did -- this stuff just as a result is pointless and an attempt to either shift blame, obscure the issue, or intimidate others into not coming forward, or something. I'm not sure what.

Who are these "several" people who have come out and denied the story that Drudge reported? Besides the lawyer I mean?
I meant that there were several other pages who had talked with Foley, besides this one. Either way, though, all Drudge has in his story is, as I said, someone saying anonymously, "Well, this isn't true." He provides no evidence, which would be one thing that would enhance his credibility even if he remained anonymous, he's not a primary actor (a person who "knows the former page very well..."), his name isn't attached to the story, so there's no way to verify what he's saying, and what this anonymous source is saying parrots something Drudge said before he broke this story. Which means his credibility is slim to none.

But once again, we're talking about semantics. Foley still had these conversations. And why the rush to defend him? And if you're not defending him, why bring this angle up at all? It doesn't help Foley, certainly. It's pointless, except to blame the victims here.

2:01 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"How about showing some proof that what Drudge said is true?"


Funny, I never hear anyone ask for proof when the NYT reports a story, and they have been wrong more times than I'd care to count.

I've said that what Drudge said made perfect sense, and unless I've missed it, nobody has been able to come up with an alternate explanation as to why some former page saved his personal IMs from three years ago.

2:07 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Funny, I never hear anyone ask for proof when the NYT reports a story, and they have been wrong more times than I'd care to count.
That's not an answer, or a defense. The NYT has been frequently wrong, and a lot of people have pointed it out when they are. That hardly constitutes a defense of this Drudge story.

I've said that what Drudge said made perfect sense, and unless I've missed it, nobody has been able to come up with an alternate explanation as to why some former page saved his personal IMs from three years ago.
So you're the arbiter of truth here? There could be a number of explanations, but they're not germane. What is germane is that this happened, which nobody is denying, and that nobody took real steps to do anything about it, and even now, most are ducking responsibility still.

2:15 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"At best, you've got a he-said she-said tale,...


Exactly. So far. But at least Drudge offers a very plausible explanation which he claims he heard from people who know Edmund and were familiar with the story.

Dave G. said...
"...but one side is anonymous AND, more importantly, has no evidence.


Yes, Dave G. At this point, Drudge's sources are anonymous, but they will not remain anonymous. They will eventually be named as the investigation progresses.

As for your "more importantly, has no evidence" comment, exactly what evidence have you seen on the other side that you found so convincing? A big fat zero, correct?

2:15 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

I take it that you do not believe that there are Democrat operatives that somehow got a hold of these IMs and sat on them until the time was ripe to stick it to the Republicans? Would you care to go on record as having rejected that idea?

>>

Brian Ross, who broke the story for ABC, said his source was a Republican.

Is he a liar, too?

2:16 PM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

Funny, I never hear anyone ask for proof when the NYT reports a story>>

Most newspaper articles are well attributed, with on-the-record sources, and usually multiple sources to back something up.

One huge exception to this was when Judith Miller listened to Curveball, and those who supported Curveball, in the run-up to the Iraq War. The Times later apologized for Miller trusting one set of sources.

2:21 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, using your logic, Drudge can claim just about anything, and unless it's proven false by -- I'm guessing -- multiple unrelated sources, then you're willing to give Drudge the benefit of the doubt?

Multiple sources have claimed that the Bush Administration was told in advance that aluminum tubes sought by Saddam Hussein could not possibly be used to reconstitute nuclear weapons, but the administration made the claim anyway.

Some have speculated the administration knowingly lied. The administration denies this charge. But they can't prove the "plausible" charge is wrong, so by your thinking, it must be given consideration?

2:25 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Exactly. So far. But at least Drudge offers a very plausible explanation which he claims he heard from people who know Edmund and were familiar with the story.
An "explanation" is just that. A hypothesis, a surmise, not fact. Again, they haven't provided any evidence, which makes their credibility that much lower.

As for your "more importantly, has no evidence" comment, exactly what evidence have you seen on the other side that you found so convincing? A big fat zero, correct?
The email exchange that we do have shows Foley egging the guy on and pushing the boundaries of the conversation, and the other guy doing very little of that, mostly reacting and responding. So that's the evidence that exists. Does that mean other conversations exist where the reverse was true? Possibly, it cannot be ruled out. But they haven't surfaced yet. But what evidence do you have? Again, a big fat zero other than what you consider a "credible explanation," which is fine and dandy, but is proof of nothing.

2:52 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"As a percentage of overall posters, I'd say that the MLF posters are far more mean-spirited than the liberals."


You're kidding, right? Do you even read the posts? If you're not kidding, rob, then I can only believe that you just find the libs' nastiness less offensive than the conservatives' nastiness because you agree with them. Either that, or you're so used to hearing the liberal rhetoric, that you don't even notice how nasty most posts are.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
1) "The MLF in general cannot handle serious discussions
2) The MLF in general have poor reading comprehension skills."


Trust me, rob, the MLFers you reference are quite capable of handling serious discussions, and have excellent reading comprehension skills. They employ them over on MarkLevinFan.com, as do I.

I can explain the reason they do not make the effort over here on JABBS, if you want. You're a big boy, so I'm sure you can handle the truth. ;)

It's because they do not have any respect for liberals, and they would not waste their time to come over here and try to engage liberals in an honest and productive debate. They feel it would be futile. I often wonder if they're not right. ;)

They read your views and they just figure, it's hopeless. You guys are just too far gone to ever come back to the center even, let alone to the right. In fact, they are always asking me where I get my patience from.

So on the rare occasion that they post here, rob, they just use it to vent a little of their frustration and/or anger at what they read here. Another point is that when they do take the time to put together a serious post, the points they make are ignored, so why even bother? Conservative views are not taken seriously over here.

As far as your objection to the word "libtards", rob, is that really so very different from the word "repukes" that Whoop uses in almost every post when referring to conservatives?

I've been posting here a very long time now, but when I complained to Whoop about his use of that word, especially when posting in reply to my posts, (since I'm a regular here) nobody chimed in and seconded my suggestion that he stop using the word. He uses it all the time.

With regard to "libs", I use that all the time. I wasn't aware you took offense at that. You are a liberal, yes? I wouldn't take offense at being called a conservative. Who knew?

2:53 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity, sorry to jump in on yours and Rob's exchanges here, but I have a few comments on this post.

You're kidding, right? Do you even read the posts? If you're not kidding, rob, then I can only believe that you just find the libs' nastiness less offensive than the conservatives' nastiness because you agree with them.
That's human nature. Conservatives do the same thing, and find their own nastiness more palatable than those of the other side.

Trust me, rob, the MLFers you reference are quite capable of handling serious discussions, and have excellent reading comprehension skills.
The ones that come over here, other than yourself, do not.

It's because they do not have any respect for liberals, and they would not waste their time to come over here and try to engage liberals in an honest and productive debate.
Oh, so that's what it is. If the others you're talking about are the usual cadre of idiots that do post here, well, they don't have any clue what an honest and productive debate is.

They read your views and they just figure, it's hopeless. You guys are just too far gone to ever come back to the center even, let alone to the right.
We're a lot closer to the center these days than you folks are, which is way, way far gone to the right.

Another point is that when they do take the time to put together a serious post, the points they make are ignored, so why even bother?
Bullcrap. You post all the time and people take the time to debate you, because they're at least reasoned, even if most of us disagree. The knuckle-draggers who post frequently from the conservative side over here show no ability to argue even somewhat effectively, never mind make any real points.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous JustWondering said...

Dave Gee Whiz, (You're) a lot closer to the center these days than (other) folks are......

I understand the need for Hillary to appear less extremist left, but the subject is the truth of the matter.

Are you saying that the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle? Bit from here, bit from yon?

3:11 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
"where did you hear that, from Mark Levin?"


(Re: the list of gay Republicans that may be outed)

No, brightlight. I heard it on Rush's show, but he got it from a great big LIB, David Corn. :P

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/10/the_list_of_gay.php

3:20 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"But once again, we're talking about semantics. Foley still had these conversations. And why the rush to defend him? And if you're not defending him, why bring this angle up at all? It doesn't help Foley, certainly. It's pointless, except to blame the victims here."


Again, for the umpteenth time, before my head explodes, nobody, least of all me, is DEFENDING Foley!!!!!

Why bring up the question of how these IMs have surfaced now you ask? Since they are years old? Aren't you even in the least bit curious? Do you think it was an accident that they were made public practically the minute had passed for the deadline to replace Foley's name on the ballot? Are you that naive?

There was collusion here on the part of some libs to hurt Republicans. Excuse us if we take that personally. You may think it's pointless to know the facts behind this deliberate attempt to make the Republicans lose a House seat, but some of us do want to get to the bottom of it all.

And of course it doesn't help Foley. Who the hell is trying to help Foley? He disgraced himself, and he's gone. That is as it should be, nnlike Democrats who behaved even worse, but didn't have the good grace to resign.

Now the Dems smell blood in the water, and are trying to take out as many other Republicans as they can. Bring these investigations on. We're eager to get all of the facts out there.

3:37 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"The NYT has been frequently wrong, and a lot of people have pointed it out when they are. That hardly constitutes a defense of this Drudge story."


Dave, G., do I have to point out to you that we have no reason at this point to believe that Drudge's story even needs a defense? It could very well turn out to be 100% accurate, so why do you continue to not only speculate that it's incorrect, but actually declare it to be? I can't believe the extent of your bias. It's quite a sight to behold!

3:46 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Trinity, using your logic, Drudge can claim just about anything, and unless it's proven false by -- I'm guessing -- multiple unrelated sources, then you're willing to give Drudge the benefit of the doubt?"


(sigh) Rob, what I am saying is that it's amazing to observe libs who are going around saying that Drudge's story is a lie, without any evidence whatsoever of that being the case.

Oh yeah. I forgot. Edmund's lawyer said it wasn't true. :rolleyes:

3:50 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"An "explanation" is just that. A hypothesis, a surmise, not fact. Again, they haven't provided any evidence, which makes their credibility that much lower."


Dave G., with all due respect, what knowledge do you, Dave G., personally have about what evidence these sources provided or didn't provide to Drudge?

And I repeat. There are on-going investigations now. The facts will get sorted out in good time, and we'll find out if what these people said about the IMs is true or not. We're going in circles at this point.

3:58 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"The email exchange that we do have shows Foley egging the guy on and pushing the boundaries of the conversation, and the other guy doing very little of that, mostly reacting and responding.


Dave G., I would agree with that. Foley definitely was the aggressor in those IMs. (again, NOT e-mails, IMs) But you are still missing the point.

To me, it's not all that important whether Jordan Edmund tried to entice Foley into making sexual overtures or not. Either way, imo, Foley was acting inappropriately.

The aspect of the story that I am most interested in is why these IMs got printed out at all? Who did that? Did Edmund himself do it? Did he email them to friends? And how did they end up in the hands of Democrats? Inquiring minds want to know.

4:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"So you're the arbiter of truth here?"


No, just a "seeker" of truth.

4:11 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

It's because they do not have any respect for liberals, and they would not waste their time to come over here and try to engage liberals in an honest and productive debate. They feel it would be futile. >>

In other words, they come over here to engage in name calling, hyperbolic statements they know not to be true, and other mischief -- which defends my point that about 75% of the comments from MLF are mean-spirited.

4:15 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

There was collusion here on the part of some libs to hurt Republicans.
Prove that. Give us a source on that other than your assertion, because I haven't seen any mainstream news organization come out and say that Democrats were indeed the source -- it's just a lot of assertions. ABC has suggested its source came from the GOP on this Foley situation.

Yes, in general in politics, one side likes to go after the other and all that. It wouldn't be surprising if that pattern held here. But where's the evidence of that here? There needs to be some before you just go out and say, "The liberals are doing this." Because it sounds sort of like Hilary's "Vast right-wing conspiracy" ramblings from a few years ago.

Dave, G., do I have to point out to you that we have no reason at this point to believe that Drudge's story even needs a defense? It could very well turn out to be 100% accurate, so why do you continue to not only speculate that it's incorrect, but actually declare it to be? I can't believe the extent of your bias. It's quite a sight to behold!
Look inside yourself, Trinity. You're swallowing Drudge hook, line and sinker. I've laid out, pretty carefully I think, the reasons I doubt Drudge's story, and you're still going back to square one and saying there is no reason to not believe him, and I'm saying there is, and I've said those already, and now that I've read the rest of your post I'll say it again, see below.

Dave G., with all due respect, what knowledge do you, Dave G., personally have about what evidence these sources provided or didn't provide to Drudge?
I have Drudge's story, which I read. The story -- unless it's been updated with a lot more detail -- doesn't cite anything other than to say these anonymous people A) knew the guy and B) said it was a prank. There's no names attached to the "operatives" they say it ended up in the hands of; there are no emails to and from each other with the "get a load of this s***!" subject line, or something like that which would bolster this story's credibility. Journalism isn't about making an assertion, saying "trust me," and not supporting it. The very idea is to support your statements with evidence and corroborating quotes. ABC's story has a transcript of the IMs. This story does not have anything close. It has a "couple of guys" who "knew the page" and said it was a prank. Period. Nobody's on the record in this matter, there's no other actual existing evidence, and the unnamed parties being quoted aren't primary actors here. So that's what evidence I have -- the lack of all evidence in Drudge's story. Does it not raise a question in your mind, at all? Who is being biased here, Trinity?

4:18 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Rob, what I am saying is that it's amazing to observe libs who are going around saying that Drudge's story is a lie, without any evidence whatsoever of that being the case.
>>

Similarly, I am amazed that with no corroborating facts other than an anonymous "friend," people are willing to say Drudge's story is the truth.

Do you defend the other Drudge comment as the truth -- the one JABBS has with Drudge blaming the pages? I haven't seen any other credible source agreeing with that bit of logic.

Because if you think that the other comment was at best distasteful and at worst a falsehood, wouldn't that call into question anything else Drudge said on the subject?

4:21 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

isn't about making an assertion, saying "trust me," and not supporting it.>>

No, Dave G., that's the job of the Bush Administration ... :)

4:23 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

No Trinity, what we have said is that there exists no reason to believe Drudge's story is credible.
As stated above, we have an on-the-record attorney verses Drudge's two unnamned sources.
Drudge would be required to come up with more evidence to back up his story. Then maybe he would be worth bending an ear.
Right now, the contradicting evidence just pushes him and his argument over the side of reason.
There exists no reason for you or other conservatives to so fervently argue for Drudge's partisan "big scoop" like you do.
It only comes across as desperation and wishful thinking.

You want to believe so badly in a Democratic conspiracy behind the Foley case, that it hurts.
"Maybe," Trinity and other conservatives believe, "If all of us were to all direct our collective mind energies towards faith in Drudge's story, it would just have to come true!
After all, it works for people who can bend spoons just by concentrating on it hard enough. And hey, what was that movie: 'Scanners'; yeah that was it. Remember that guy could blow his opponents head off just by thinking about it. Yeah, maybe we could do that."

4:58 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Yes, in general in politics, one side likes to go after the other and all that. It wouldn't be surprising if that pattern held here. But where's the evidence of that here? There needs to be some before you just go out and say, "The liberals are doing this."


My bad, Dave G. I neglected to add "imho" to my comments. I base my suspicions on the premise that Republicans wouldn't sabotage their own chances of winning Foley's House seat in Florida. If they wanted to get rid of Foley, they would have done it in time to have his name removed from the ballot. Make sense?

5:11 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

If they wanted to get rid of Foley, they would have done it in time to have his name removed from the ballot. Make sense?

It does.

Except for one thing.

You're forgetting a common trait of those in power who forget the work it took to get themselves in power. Laziness and incompetence. If the GOP were indeed negligent enough to not bother to investigate this, as there were warning signs way way back, then they could easily get themselves in this place just by virtue of being all-thumbs. This trait is not limited to politics, nor is it limited to republicans. But we're talking about those in power right now. Is it possible they could screw up so badly and let this wave hit them in the face? Oh, my, yes it is.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Similarly, I am amazed that with no corroborating facts other than an anonymous "friend," people are willing to say Drudge's story is the truth."


Actually, rob, there were two sources, not one, and they do stand by their stories. The second source confirmed the "prank" scenario. They said they were afraid to ID themselves because they feared the publicity would harm their political careers.

Like it or not, Drudge's reporting has kept a lot of people way ahead of the curve when it comes to breaking news. I've found that most of the sources I cite here are often questioned because they are conservative, but yet, the sources used by most here are most often liberal, and that's just fine with everyone. Double standard?

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Do you defend the other Drudge comment as the truth -- the one JABBS has with Drudge blaming the pages? I haven't seen any other credible source agreeing with that bit of logic."


Do I defend it? First of all here's what Drudge said about that, just so we're clear about what we're talking about:

"MATT DRUDGE: You‘re not going to tell me these are innocent babies. The kids are egging the congressman on.

If what Drudge's two sources say turns out to be accurate, then I think the statement stands on its own. They would indeed have been complicit in something, although I'm not sure what? Entrapment? I've no idea.

Bottom line, however, is that even if they get charged with some misdemeanor or something for recording Foley's comments without his knowledge, it doesn't excuse Foley for making them. The authorites will have to sort that whole mess out eventually.

Also, Drudge made perfectly clear that his "prank" story applied ONLY to the Edmund IM sessions and "does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others."

5:45 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"If the GOP were indeed negligent enough to not bother to investigate this, as there were warning signs way way back, then they could easily get themselves in this place just by virtue of being all-thumbs."


Not very likely. For as much as you guys ridicule talk radio and FNC and conservative websites and blogs, etc., I will say in their defense that they must be pretty informative, since time and time again I seem to be aware of a lot of things that you guys are not. ;)

E.g., Anonymous not being aware of the list of gay Republicans that gay groups are threatening to out on Capitol Hill, etc.

And with regard to what you just called the GOP's negligence in investigating all of those "warning signs", from what I've been able to ascertain, it appears that Hastert never even eye-balled those "over-friendly" e-mails.

All they knew was that the 16 year old's family asked that Foley not communicate with their son any more, and they didn't want any publicity. Nor did they provide copies of the actual e-mails if I'm not mistaken. In any case, Foley was warned not to have any further contact with the young man, and he agreed he would not.

So, how does it happen then that the leftist group CREW sent copies of those emails between Foley and the 16 year old to the FBI last July? I wonder where they got them? The FBI didn't believe that the e-mails were of the sort that warranted an investigation. Here's a little background:

"CREW has confirmed that it received some of the initial messages between Foley and the unnamed page and forwarded it to the FBI on July 21, 2006. At the same time, media outlets have claimed to have received similar materials, but have not cited the sources. There is widespread belief that CREW operatives, or those with outside ties to CREW, were those sources. Other news outlets claim to have seen some of the email traffic between Foley and the teenager as early as last November.

AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT CREW was receiving the documents in question, a blog, StopSexPredators went live on July 28th, exactly one week after CREW received the materials, according to the blog's archives. No ownership or name is attached to the site, and it appears to have gone dormant off and on, with only sporadic posting since it initially went online.

"It would be interesting to see who is behind the site," says an RNC staffer familiar with opposition research techniques. "It doesn't smell quite right, and certainly the only reason for its existence as far as I can tell is to push the Foley story." "


http://www.americanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10446

Definitely a bunch of very left-leaning people involved in CREW. This is really getting interesting.

11:32 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Repukes boast as of one their platforms that appeals to the Christian Right is they live by high moral standards, are sinless, cater to family values", are perfect in every way, need to be put on a pedestal and the Democrats are polar oppposites.

Police/FBI/TV use sting operations all the time to snare people that do not live a stellar life. People that live a stellar life do not get caught in these sting programs. If as Drudge said if this was a prank perpetrated by some young page, then maybe they did it because they knew Foley would respond. Also why did they pull the prank only on him? Maybe, this was their only way to get the Republican leaders in the house to deal with Foley?

So if I read what the repukes are saying on this post, the prank is worst than what Foley did and what the Republican leadership did not do about Foley earlier!!

I guess Drudge's same logic on the Foley fall from grace is similiar to what happened to Daniel Pearl. He went to do some reporting and therefore egged on the Muslims to butcher him! I will agree that what the Muslims did is much much worse than what Foley did, but the same twisted conspiracy theory logic is equal.

11:35 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Again, Brian Ross of ABC, who first aired the story, said his source was Republican. He did not say his source was CREW.

11:36 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

For as much as you guys ridicule talk radio and FNC and conservative websites and blogs, etc., I will say in their defense that they must be pretty informative, since time and time again I seem to be aware of a lot of things that you guys are not. ;)

<<<

For example, thanks to FNC's Bill O'Reilly, we know that Foley is a Democrat, right Trinity?

11:38 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

And with regard to what you just called the GOP's negligence in investigating all of those "warning signs", from what I've been able to ascertain, it appears that Hastert never even eye-balled those "over-friendly" e-mails.

All they knew was that the 16 year old's family asked that Foley not communicate with their son any more, and they didn't want any publicity. Nor did they provide copies of the actual e-mails if I'm not mistaken. In any case, Foley was warned not to have any further contact with the young man, and he agreed he would not.


Enough people under Hastert were told of something going on. And they did almost nothing about it. If ABC is able to ascertain, by talking to different people, this quickly, that Foley had contact with many pages, then a Congressman's staff could have done so as well long before this. The parents didn't want publicity, and that's fine, but the GOP leaders had other responsibilities, namely, the other pledges, and to not look into the matter more closely was negligent, and does not protect the pages.

As for your other stuff about the conservative media being informatiave, I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about the GOP leaders of the House, who missed a lot of signs here.

As for the list of gay GOPers gay groups are threatening to out, well, there's a few reasons for that. They're public figures, first of all. I'm not gay, but if there's one thing I know gay people don't like, it's closet cases. Now, a person who is afraid to tell his mom that he's in a relationship with another man, that's something the boyfriend might handle one way.

A Congressman who becomes known for getting some man-on-man action on the side and then going into the house of Congress and voting against gay rights and such? Well, gay groups tend to really, really dislike that, which is why they're "targeted," so to speak.


Either way, Trinity, that aspect has very little to do with Foley, who was stalking 16-year-olds. It has very little to do with who had the IMs and when, because this isn't a made-up smear campaign. Foley DID all of this. It's not being disputed. And the questions -- what did Hastert/Shinkus/Reynolds know and when, that's what's pertinent. It may be that Hastert knew so little that he really does have plausible deniability. I seriously doubt that with the likes of Reynolds and others, however.

11:47 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

And just to provide a bit of context to Jones' "fiction" comment, since I don't think JABBS was aware of it, or David would have added a post script to the story....

CNN: RE: Lawyer Stephen Jones

BLITZER: "He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these Internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there."

CNN REPORTER: "We asked him about that item in the DRUDGE REPORT. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he -- he does not read the DRUDGE REPORT, not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction..."

BLITZER: "He says the DRUDE REPORT item sounds like a piece of fiction?"

CNN REPORTER: "He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out."

2:59 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"Repukes boast as of one their platforms that appeals to the Christian Right is they live by high moral standards, are sinless, cater to family values", are perfect in every way, need to be put on a pedestal and the Democrats are polar oppposites."


No, whoop, you poor misguided idiot. We do not say we are sinless or that we are perfect in every way.

But we do aspire to live by high moral standards, with family values very high on our list.

That is why, dolt, when one of us falls from grace, we are humiliated, contrite, and filled with shame, because we failed to live up to the high expectations we demand of ourselves.

Just as an aside, were you always such a jerk?

whoop4467 said...
"If as Drudge said if this was a prank perpetrated by some young page, then maybe they did it because they knew Foley would respond."


Need I say "DUH"?

3:07 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Again, Brian Ross of ABC, who first aired the story, said his source was Republican. He did not say his source was CREW."


Are you speaking of the original e-mails between the 16 year old and Foley, or the IMs with the older, former pages, just so I'm clear?

If you can give me that quote from Ross, it would help. If you posted it already, I apologize, but I'd have to locate it.

In any case, when questioned about it by Amy Goodman, Maddy Sauer, ABC News Producer, said this:

MADDY SAUER: They were passed to a colleague of mine from a source, not someone from a Democratic campaign, a source on the Hill.

So, although she denies it came from someone involved in a Democratic campaign, she takes care not to identify the "source on the Hill" as being Republican or Democrat.

Some excerpts from MSNBC on-line:

The boy who received the e-mails was 16 in the summer of 2005 when he worked in Congress as a page. After the boy returned to his Louisiana home, the congressman e-mailed him. The teenager thought the messages were inappropriate, particularly one in which Foley asked the teen to send a picture of himself.

The teen’s family contacted their congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who then discussed the problem with Reynolds sometime this spring.......

......The report includes a lengthy timeline detailing when they first learned of the worrisome e-mail in the fall of 2005, after a staffer for Alexander told Hastert’s office the family wanted Foley to stop contacting their son. Alexander’s staffer did not share the contents of the e-mail, saying it was not sexual but “over-friendly,” the report says.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15063977/

So, it's not really clear who passed on the e-mails to ABC. If it was Alexander's staffer, he could very well be an Democrat since Alexander only just recently changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican, and perhaps some of his people are still Democrats. Just speculating.

On August 6, 2004, Alexander decided to switch parties and ran for reelection as a Republican. He had been elected in 2002 as a Democrat. Two days after having filed for reelection as a Democrat, Alexander filed as a Republican on the very last day of filing, fifteen minutes before the deadline.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rodney_Alexander

3:35 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"For example, thanks to FNC's Bill O'Reilly, we know that Foley is a Democrat, right Trinity?"


Cheap shot, don't you think, rob? Especially in view of all of the errors that MSM make on a regular basis?

But of course, I suppose when the NYTimes makes an error, it's one thing, and when O'Reily does it, it's quite another.

Further proof that libs have a double standard. Conservatives aren't even permitted an honest mistake. :rolleyes:

P.S. Had you included a smiley face in your post, I would never have responded so seriously and without humor. ;)

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity, this is what I have from Brian Ross on the original sources of the emails. It's from a 10/3 New York Times article:

"Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.

"I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party," Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans. "


A later story from "The Hill," which is, I believe, one of the big Capitol Hill newsletters, says something similar:

"The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim."


As for this...
That is why, dolt, when one of us falls from grace, we are humiliated, contrite, and filled with shame, because we failed to live up to the high expectations we demand of ourselves.

Maybe you're that way, Trinity. But the leaders in the House are certainly not. Regardless of what you may think, liberals have standards too, and values too. We're not inhuman.

3:45 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"The parents didn't want publicity, and that's fine, but the GOP leaders had other responsibilities, namely, the other pledges, and to not look into the matter more closely was negligent, and does not protect the pages.........

........It may be that Hastert knew so little that he really does have plausible deniability. I seriously doubt that with the likes of Reynolds and others, however.


Some of the more reasonable comments you have ever made, Dave G. And when a lib makes a reasonable comment, I never argue with it, I agree with it. :)

3:47 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Maybe you're that way, Trinity. But the leaders in the House are certainly not. Regardless of what you may think, liberals have standards too, and values too. We're not inhuman.


I know that, Dave G. And you're right. Some of you do have standards. Especially regular everyday, hard-working Democrats. They are just regular Americans, trying to do the best for themselves and their families.

Unfortunately though, far too many in your party apply "double" standards. One for "Ds" and one for "Rs".

I have to run, but I'll pick up this discussion another time.

3:54 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Some of the more reasonable comments you have ever made, Dave G. And when a lib makes a reasonable comment, I never argue with it, I agree with it. :)
Wow, common ground! Something must be going wrong here. :)

Unfortunately though, far too many in your party apply "double" standards. One for "Ds" and one for "Rs".
I would argue it exists on your end as well. And with the media having abdicated its duties -- essentially turning every issue into a "We're going to bring on a left-wing moonbat and a right-wing nutjob and let 'em scream until one of them dies" instead of trying to provide any real clarification of what's going on (one of the reasons why the decline of the NYT has been such a disaster for the country IMHO), it's hard to know who to go to. Reading several sources helps; the Wash. Post has been a more reliable one overall. But that's kind of where it is now.

4:12 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Trinity -- as an aside, were you born a "BITCH" or did you develope from your association with the repukes??

Yea, when you repukes fall from from your pedestal you want to pull the entire world down with you and want to blame it on the Democrats. The one thing I can say about Nixon was at first he wanted to take the world down with him during his fall, but he showed some grace and left to hopefully save our society from years and years of in-fighting, but to no avail.

As you have read I have never agreed with Clinton's lie about his sexual relationship with that 22 year old women and did not vote for him either time. But , he did not try to drag the entire world down with his fall from grace. He did blame the "right wing" conspiracy for the successfull effort. In John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" he said he was asked by the Republican leadership for his help in formulating a plan of attack against Clinton since he had experience with impeachment. Dean said that all the leadership could talk about was what and how could they destroy Clinton. Dean said they walked around with such a concentrated look it appeared as if fire was coming from their eyes. This is one reason why I say our economy got better during Clinton's tenure was the Republicans kept the Congress busy doing everything it could to destroy Clinton and in the process it allowed our society to prosper without the influence of the Repukes.

Trinity, you repukes may not say vebatum that you are sinless or perfect in every way, but the obvious implied implications are there in all of your post. It is like Bush saying that he never said verbatum that Saddam had a connection to Al Qaeda, but about 90% of Americans thought so at one time because it was implied over and over and over and over again! You or the other repukes do not talk to us on this post, you talk down to us on this post as if we were listening to a sermon without all of the Scripture quotes. And instead of calling us sinners( though implied), you call us idiots,jerks, lovers of "terrorism" and that is a crock of s..t, haters of freedom which is another crock of S..t.

If you you are who and what you truely want us to believe you are, you have have not come close to convincing me. I believe you are a scoundrel that hates democracy and you want to live under control of a power hungry Bush/Chaney regime that has no love for our constitution.

8:37 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"To Trinity -- as an aside, were you born a "BITCH" or did you develope from your association with the repukes??"


You know, dufus, I'm not really sure if I was born a bitch. I don't think I was because I've noticed that it's only extremely rude and incredibly ignorant libtards such as yourself who bring out that bitchiness in me, and I never knew anybody like you back then.

If you'd care to notice, a-hole, those here who treat me with respect, or at least with a modicum of civility, I do not call names.

You spout nothing but crap for the most part, and can't write a post without using the word, "Repukes", so yes, I will be a bitch with you, and enjoy it immensely, simply because you're a major jerk. Enjoy your Sunday, cretin! :)

1:24 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said....
"I would argue it (double standard) exists on your end as well."


Well then, I'm listening, Dave G. Go ahead and argue it. Make the case that Republicans have a double standard where these issues are concerned, and I promise to give it a fair listen.

Actually, I guess I could agree in a way, now that I think about it. Republicans DO have a double standard. They've come to expect and to accept that Democrats very rarely if ever resign over ethical behavioral lapses and/or even criminal behavior, but yet they feel compelled to throw their own under the bus at the mere suggestion or appearance of impropriety or poor judgement.

Hmmmm. You're right. THat does sound an awful lot like a double standard. ;)

But I'm sure that's not the argument you wanted to make, Dave G., so I'll shut up now and give you the opportunity to make your own case. The "stage" is yours.

3:35 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said:
"Actually, I guess I could agree in a way, now that I think about it. Republicans DO have a double standard. They've come to expect and to accept that Democrats very rarely if ever resign over ethical behavioral lapses and/or even criminal behavior, but yet they feel compelled to throw their own under the bus at the mere suggestion or appearance of impropriety or poor judgement."

Trinity. Your argument is fatally flawed. Because you're only referring to the 10 or so Democratic cases of ethical behavioral lapses, criminal behavior, etc. found in the latest Republican talking points.
In order for your argument to have any validity, you would also have to apply it to all the REPUBLICAN sex scandals to see whether it is indeed true.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732583.php
Until you are willing to do that, your argument sinks like a lead weight in the pool of reason.

Also, the facts find support within Whoop's arguments: The Republicans had knives in their eyes for Clinton and followed a preconceived drive to bring him down at any cost, and Bush created the Sadaam OBL connection in the public's mind and then denied any responsibility for this action.
(This is similiar to Bush currently putting words in the Democrats' mouth that about their positions on terrorism that NO rational person could even exaggerate about their actual positions, after he called for unity between the parties on Sept. 11 this year).
Because you don't respond to Whoop's valid points, we are left to believe you do not have defenses for them.

5:03 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity, the War on Terrible pretty much answered you well to your assertion on that one. But Henry Hyde's "youthful indiscretion" excuses while he's trying to push Clinton into resigning sounds like a good example of the height of hypocrisy to me, defending something you did while trying to convict someone else for the same thing.

I think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that one party is inherently more right or more equal than the other. Particularly the current crop of corrupt losers running the House right now. Hastert more often than not has tolerated or otherwise looked the other way at various types of ethical abuses and indiscretions, and done little about it until it explodes into a major issue. Then he gets tough and calls for investigations. A lot of people knew about this situation and little, if anything, was done. It's not a moment that Republicans can use to stand up proudly and say, "We're better than you."

9:31 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Trinity. Your argument is fatally flawed. Because you're only referring to the 10 or so Democratic cases of ethical behavioral lapses, criminal behavior, etc. found in the latest Republican talking points."


I don't get Republican talking points, twot. I have a brain of my own and I know how to use it.

10:56 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"But Henry Hyde's "youthful indiscretion" excuses while he's trying to push Clinton into resigning sounds like a good example of the height of hypocrisy to me, defending something you did while trying to convict someone else for the same thing.


Dave G., Henry Hyde committed adultery. That truly was a personal matter between himself and his wife, and his mistress and her husband.

Clinton did not get impeached for being a serial adulterer. He got impeached for committing perjury before a grand jury, as well as for obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case against him.

11:00 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"Yea, when you repukes fall from from your pedestal you want to pull the entire world down with you and want to blame it on the Democrats. The one thing I can say about Nixon was at first he wanted to take the world down with him during his fall, but he showed some grace and left to hopefully save our society from years and years of in-fighting, but to no avail."


For God's sake, whoop. Will you listen to yourself? You're making my own case for me, but you are too braindead to even realize it.

Yes, Nixon resigned and the country was spared a long drawn out partisan ordeal. Nixon didn't want to leave office, but he did wrong, and he lost the support of his Party.

When Republican leaders went to him and let him know that there were enough Republican votes to convict him, he decided to resign, unlike your hero Clinton, and the feckless Democrat leadership who instead, circled the wagons around him and refused to hold him accountable.

11:19 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"....listening to talk radio yesterday, I heard three or four callers offer the Drudge thing as proof this whole story was ridiculous, or was just something the Democrats had schemed, and that the "prank" story would blow up in the Democrats' faces."


To be clear, rob, I, and many other conservatives, DO believe that should the investigations find that there are Democrat operatives who have been quietly sitting on these sexually explicit IMs for some time now, waiting for the most opportunistic time to release them to the media, such despicable lack of principle WILL, and SHOULD blow up in their faces.

Sorry for that run-on sentence, but what I am saying is that here you have the Dems throwing allegations around that Hastert has endangered the welfare of the pages, when they have no idea whether Hastert even knew about Foley's misconduct prior to the Friday before last.

11:40 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Sheesh, Trinity. The boy's lawyer said it's false."


Just wondering if you saw my post where Jones actually said that he couldn't rule it out. ??? Just wanted to repost that, in case you missed it. ;)

11:43 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"In other words, they come over here to engage in name calling, hyperbolic statements they know not to be true, and other mischief -- which defends my point that about 75% of the comments from MLF are mean-spirited."


Rob, I very much doubt that they would come over here at all, if it weren't for the fact that JABBS takes so many shots at Mark Levin, a man we have come to know, love and respect.

I think most of the posts from MLFs occur whenever they read something they don't like about Mark.

11:58 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, sorry, but that's bull. You either aren't paying attention to the comments from MLF, or you have blinders on.

If the MLF actually tried to have a reasonable debate, maybe we'd find some common ground. Maybe not. But at least we'd have a reasonable debate.

I'm not defending some of the crap from the liberal commenters here, either. I think it's just as bad when liberals engage in name calling.

But at the same time, some of the comments from the MLF are just stupid. Just brain dead name-calling with no real point. Purposeful misinterpretation of a JABBS post or a comment. It's as if some of these people are stuck on "liberals are evil" and don't even want to try to defend conservative theory, ideals, political decisions, etc.

Hey, if JABBS or a commenter gets something wrong, wouldn't it be best to point that out -- not with vague fact-challenged statements or name-calling, but by saying look at this other article, look at this other quote?

You do that, Trinity, and that's fine. We can debate the points. But most of your MLF friends seem incapable of this. They don't want to try. They just want to snicker.

12:39 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Sorry for that run-on sentence, but what I am saying is that here you have the Dems throwing allegations around that Hastert has endangered the welfare of the pages, when they have no idea whether Hastert even knew about Foley's misconduct prior to the Friday before last.

And you have Republicans throwing out allegations that the Dems put all this out there when there's even less real evidence of that than there is of Hastert knowing. They're just saying it -- and Hastert himself said it. It's one thing for a blogger to accuse, but the Speaker of the House, who clearly let this happen on his watch, goes out "on offense," so to speak? What the f*** is wrong with him? It's time to be contrite, Hastert, you ass.

Based on the statements from various people, people who worked directly, and very closely with, Hastert, knew about Foley. Is it possible the speaker knew nothing? I don't think so. Almost nothing? Maybe. It's possible. But as far as Democrats knowing, there's almost nothing there - so far, anyway - you have CREW knowing in July and sending the emails to the FBI a day after receiving them. Is it possible Dems found out and threw the emails to ABC a couple weeks back? Sure, absolutely. But to know for years? So far we haven't heard it.

But at the same time, some of the comments from the MLF are just stupid. Just brain dead name-calling with no real point. Purposeful misinterpretation of a JABBS post or a comment. It's as if some of these people are stuck on "liberals are evil" and don't even want to try to defend conservative theory, ideals, political decisions, etc.

And Rob is right about this. There's almost no debating going on. They throw out unsubstantiated garbage, yammer on about BJ Clinton and whatever, without trying to even be coherent. At least you're trying to converse with us.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

When Republican leaders went to him and let him know that there were enough Republican votes to convict him, he decided to resign, unlike your hero Clinton, and the feckless Democrat leadership who instead, circled the wagons around him and refused to hold him accountable.

Ugh. Accountable for what? For committing adultery and lying about it before a grand jury. It was a witch hunt...people who wanted to "get" him more than anything else. And a good 70% of the public thought the Republicans went too far as it was, which was the truth. Unlike, say, lying the nation into an unecessary war, promoting torture as an American value and trying to cover it up, and outing a CIA agent because they disagreed with the administration.

9:07 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Clinton is out there right now doing phenomial good works, raising a $1 billion fund for clean energy, and launching a program to improve nutrition in public schools across the country.
Let's see now. The Repukes would have thrown him in prison.
Bill Clinton reportedly is the most-highly paid and best-sought after speaker of any former politician today.
Republicans cannot accept the fact their scheme to forever tarnish this once great president, who has a quality a scoundrel like Bush completely lacks: sensitivity towards the common good and motivations of everyday people, has completely failed.
Repukes haven't learned a few simple age old lessons.
Everyone has faults.
You can't keep a good man down.

9:54 AM  
Anonymous Charles said...

Dave Gump, nobody 'out(ed) a CIA agent' Valerie Plame was and is NOT an 'agent'.

10:14 AM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Twot, Clinton sold his country out years ago. This is not new.

Clinton 'loathed' the the milkitary so he doged the draft during Vietnam, and went to Russia and protested against America. Russia and China were supplying the Viet Cong with weapons at the time.

Now he's older and 'wiser' he connives to get paid for his treachery. He was paid $200,000 to go to Dubai and speak agsinst America. Dubai and other Islamic countries supply funds and weapons to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Quaeda and the Hezbullah.

Clinton is a traitor, but he's your 'hero' and you think anyone who can get blood money for their fifth column work is to be 'honored'.

Demanding that others respect a shyster like Clinton is pathetic.

Clinton is a high paid lobbyist, so he is to be forgiven past crimes?

10:34 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Clinton is a traitor?
What bullshit and Republican spin rubbish.
I suggest Widget you look at JABBS post above at a successful nuclear proliferation policy Clinton adapted for N. Korea, in which history will cheer.
And you can also read about the successful dismantling of that policy by the Bush Administration, endangering all the world, that history will sneer.

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Dave Gump, nobody 'out(ed) a CIA agent' Valerie Plame was and is NOT an 'agent'.

No, she was only in charge of the CIA's Iraq survey group.

Dope.

12:06 PM  
Anonymous Widget said...

Twot, Clinton GAVE N Korea the material to make the bombs.

Hardly the actions of a 'peacenik'.

Dont hold your breathe.

Your can Tip Toe through the Tulips, and do a Make Love Not War Dance among the Daisys till the bombs fall on us, but the only name Clinton will have in history will be Draft Dodger, traitor, rapist and appeaser,who sold out our country and abused the power of the office of president.

4:06 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Twot, Clinton GAVE N Korea the material to make the bombs.

Untrue. Clinton reached an accepted framework in 1994 that would have provided material for light-water reactors to produce electricity, in exchange for the North Koreans freezing their plutonium enhancement -- note that, plutonium. While uranium takes a long time to enrich, plutonium is pretty close to grab-and-go as it comes, so to speak, with nuclear materials.

That plutonium material remained frozen and inspectors remained on-site monitoring things from 1994 to 2002. By then, we found out that N.Korea was secretey trying to enrich uranium -- a bit of an end-around on the deal, which didn't really adress uranium.

They admitted this to Bush's people. Instead of putting together a method of talking, Bush refused to talk. But his jawboning was for naught also, as after they threw out the inspectors and enriched the plutonium Bush didn't back up his jawboning, because he instead was already planning on going to war with Iraq. And now, here we are, 4 years later.

Clinton's treaty wasn't perfect. The reactors weren't being built and it appears N. korea was looking for ways around the deal as well. But it did stop them from enriching plutonium for years, which is important. Bush didn't do any of these things.

Is Clinton a grade-A success on N.K.? Hardly. Did Bush do even worse? Yes.

4:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares