One of the things that always bothered me the most about the "Clinton sent them in and then cut and run" dogma from the right is that Clinton did NOT send them in. One of George I's last acts as president was to deploy troops to Somalia right before Christmas 1992. I know that because I was thinking, "Bush must really hate Christmas" having started three major troop actions (Panama, Desert Shield/Storm, and Somalia) for 4 of his holidays. I didn't realize at the time that his son would trump that by ruining all the holidays for years on end...

I wish I could write like that but glad I don't have to.

I just finished 28 years in the Air Force but when my 17 year old showed up with Army literature last month, I told him he wasn't allowed to join any branch of service (other than Coast Guard or Public Health Service) until I was convinced that the people in charge would watch out for him.

It's nice McGovern is working on a plan for Iraqi exit as noted above but the primary responsibility for developing such an exit plan is not the Democrat's duty. That's like the plumber blowing up my toilet when I called him in to fix a leak and then getting all snarky because I don't have a ready plan to handle the flood.

But I think right wingers who have broken ranks would certainly be on the list also. There will be plenty of company in the camp for "Enemies of America" if we use the administration's definitions. (Cheney has already spelled them out fairly well)

I used to think Joe just was another deluded, "kool-aid drinking" neocon. (In another post he said he was a "garbage man": I doubted that. I couldn't see him being anything other than a straight, white, christian, white-collar, upper middle class young republican. Well, if not straight, then gay and self-loathing like the rest in the Republican heirarchy.) These postings, and some others recently, make it quite clear in their buffoonish inanity that he is a "progressive" himself and is working on his Stephen Colbert-like stand up comedy routine. Not very original but better than being someone who actually believed the words they typed.

I think Foley just "cut and run".

There will be those who will say Foley was martyred and didn't get "his day in court". They will miss the point that some folks (see "Bob Ney") really don't want a day in court because of all the pesky soundbites that end up in the archives when people have to speak under oath.

No, not looking for a date. Just said it again in case you missed it the first time. And also to say your "garbage man" line was crap. Your attitudes don't seem consistent with those of someone who does honest hard physical work for a marginally livable wage. They are much too neocon elite.

Who's Nance, anyway?

Back to ignoring you again. You're as predictable as the guy that signs on to Modern World cartoons the second they're up to say they are boring. Or is that you, too?

I would suggest that the Democratic Party not take its advice from the National Review. The political issue in this case is not just that another Republican hypocrite has been unmasked but the idea that there was a coverup by the republican authorities for political reasons. Opening multiple lines of investigation makes sense since several of them involve people potentially investigating themselves with the questionable reliability attendant to that.

16 and 17 year olds do not "know what they are doing". They may be sexually active but these are two different things. That's why most STI's, including HIV, and unwanted pregnancies occur between the ages of 15 and 25. Young people do NOT know what they're doing.

I think the best thing to challenge anyone desiring to pass blame to the victim is what several posters are suggesting. It's your 16/17 year old son or daughter. It's a 54 year old (I don't care which sex). Do you approve? Does society approve? Is it "normal" to you? Would you let the emails go on as harmless flirtation?

We don't really know what Rush was up to except of course the Family Values Man wasn't there with a legal, opposite sex spouse. The reason for the snarky innuendo is that it's becoming a safe bet (recalling Bill Bennett for a moment) that whatever is the most hypocritical thing a republican could have done, is probably what they did.

I, too, am disappointed that all the focus is now on this nimrod instead of: (fill in the blank: torture legislation, NIE report, gutting of constitution, etc.) Foley's actions reflect great discredit upon himself and republican congressmen covering up to avoid political fallout reflect great discredit on their party. The legislation passed last week, on the other hand, lowers the entire country's standing in the world another notch.

That being said, "naughty emails" is something that penetrates the conciousness of every conservative parent out there. The hypocrisy of this particular situation is easy to state and easy to understand. Even the "sheeple" seem not to be blindly following the conservative spin this time. Most parents do not believe a 16 year old is nearly an adult and knows what their doing. While happy to blame Clinton 100% for 911, they have trouble absolving Foley for doing it this year because of the democratic culture of corruption 5 years ago. And even if democrats cynically held this information for an October surprise, Foley was not neither entrapped nor set up. In a country where there are still millions of people that believe that Hussein had a major role in 911, the Iraq war is going well, and only terrorists need fear the loss of their civil liberties, I'll take what I can get.

The republicans, especially the administration, have had a lot of success the last few years squeezing their eyes real tight, plugging their ears and saying something over and over again until everyone actually believe it's true.