[AmericanInTokyo]

Now we have Secret Service in a country where their reported (alleged) acts in-contry were not illegal. According to the understanding of a senior US Sentator, there is no standing statue (yet) forbidding S.S. agents against having a female in their room overnight, and to my knowledge, they were at the time doing advance work in Cartagena, Colombia and specifically on private duty in the evening.

It is reported some of the agents made a stop to the store for "condoms" after they had selected their Colombiana partner for the night. Which begs the question and maybe Ms. Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law School can weigh in.

If any of these men kept a receipt for the purchase of such "ahem!", items, should they not be able to then submit them in their expense report and demand reimbursement by the US government or the insurance agenc they are covered by as US employees?

After all, the items were needed for not only their peace of mind but protection, just the same as the federally funded insurance covered condoms insisted by Ms. Fluke when she spoke as a member of a traditional, moral academic organization.

Now if she says yes, would not that be something? But if she says no, then she is a hypocrite. Is she not a sexist (and also discriminating based on "sexual orientation", also against the Georgetown ethos, because the agents reportedly had a sexual orientation propensity, at least at that time, to have sexual relations as part of a business deal rather than anything romantic)? She is saying she can have such items funded because she is female (even if such items go against the moral foundation of the institution), but the others cannot have them funded because they are male? I don't get it. Which way is it, Miss FLUKE!!?? Shouldn't these men turn the receipts for contraceptives in to the US Government for reimbursement, if they wished to?

[fish hawk]

So, slut was the right word after all.

[leprechaun9]

Secretary of State “Tools of the Trade”!

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Why do we hold the security detail to higher standards than those displayed by a former client (William Jefferson Clinton)?

[AmericanInTokyo]

Request to Conservative bloggers:As always, feel free to use this, but a) attribute "Free Republic" and "AmericanInTokyo" (in other words, it is not your own work as you know); and b) provide a URL link to the original thought piece here at FR. Feel free to viralize.

[chuckee]

Don’t look for Sandra Fluke to weigh in on the Secret Service controversy. She is too busy dumpster diving for trojans between classes right now.Poor thing.

[KJC1]

Before this "goes viral" you might want to correct some typos. Like these three in one single sentence early on: " in-contry were not illegal. According to the understanding of a senior US Sentator, there is no standing statue..."

I agree with your message, but you might want to clean it up before offering it up as some type of "viral" message!

[jaz.357]

Spot on!

[ModelBreaker]

Nah. That would be “men’s rights.” Can’t be havin’ any of that around Sandra.

[QT3.14]

-- According to the understanding of a senior US Sentator, there is no standing statue (yet) forbidding S.S. agents against having a female in their room overnight, and to my knowledge, they were at the time doing advance work in Cartagena, Colombia and specifically on private duty in the evening.

The Al Gore-m Doctrine?

"There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."