Posted on 10/07/2006 5:42:11 AM PDT by flynmudd
Do you remember how many times during the Clinton years Democrats told us everyone lies about sex and that Republicans were shamefully distracting the Clinton administration by harping on White House cover-ups about sex with an intern?
Well, we have far worse distractions now being promoted by Democrats about far less important matters and during far more dangerous times.
When Clinton was president he lamented, "I just want to get back to the work of the American people." That deserves to be echoed by Democrats today, because we need to have a genuine debate on the issues that really matter – the war against the jihadists, the economy, marriage and abortion, and other vital issues – before the November elections.
Will Democrats, if they regain control of either – or both – houses of Congress, use their newfound majority to further stifle the president's prosecution of the war on terror? Will they de-fund our soldiers in Iraq and demand a timetable for withdrawal? Their incessant criticisms of Iraq being "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" imply that they would.
Likewise, would the Democrats undo the partial reform measures aimed at sealing our borders? Would they try to roll back tax cuts? The public is entitled to know what the Republicans stand for and what the Democrats stand for, and the media are supposed to be the vehicle to make sure that we do.
But the media seem uninterested in these issues. Their sole focus seems to be to try to embarrass, if not emasculate, President Bush and the Republicans and return the Democrats to power.
Don't tell me the media and the Democrats are morally outraged about any aspect of the Foley matter, because that dog just won't hunt. They have absolutely no moral standing to complain about anyone else's laxity over deviant sexual behavior.
You know the drill. You've read and heard the Democrats' sordid track record on these matters. They not only didn't condemn Democratic congressman Gerry Studds for his actual sex – not perverted flirting – with a page, they gave him ovations. Congressman Barney Frank remains a respected Democrat even though an aide ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. The Democrats told us that Clinton's defilement of the Oval Office was a private matter. They champion the advancement of the radical homosexual agenda and safeguard partial-birth abortion.
"No, no, no," they cry. This is about Republican hypocrisy. The GOP pretends to be the party of values and yet embroils itself in this salacious scandal.
But Republicans are not guilty of hypocrisy here – they immediately purged Foley when they discovered the extent of his disgraceful misconduct.
And if Speaker Dennis Hastert had dropped the ax on Foley earlier, based on what he was told about the initial e-mails, you can be sure that the ACLU, the gay lobby, and apparently indignant Democrats would have cried homophobia at the top of their lungs.
It's the Democrats who are the hypocrites. Here they are castigating Hastert for not taking action that they would otherwise describe as homophobia.
This should be a non-scandal because it doesn't involve the Republican Party, or, in fairness, even its House leader. Based on the facts we know now, it involves Foley alone. Let's put the brakes on this rush to judgment against Hastert until we see what facts the investigation reveals.
The real scandal is the Democratic Party. As I point out in my book "Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" – and document in detail in their own words – the Democrats are unhinged in their Bush hatred, trying to parade under a false banner of being a "values" party themselves, and have no real political platform at all, except for opposing the Republicans on everything, most of all on the war on terror.
And the real disaster would be if Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House or Harry Reid becomes the Senate majority leader. Can anyone really see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid as responsible war leaders in Congress?
Democrats have disingenuously told us they couldn't wait to make this election a referendum on President Bush's policies on national security and the war in Iraq. But they have done everything they could to avoid this discussion because they still have no policies of their own to offer on the war – and they have even less to offer on the economy, which is robust and booming.
They will ride the Foley incident as long as they can, but eventually, sometime before the election, they'll have to give us some answers. Too bad for them. They don't have any.
Bubba was 52 years old (same age as Foley) when Monica "gave at the office".
Gives the saying "gave at the office" a new meaning.
The Dems don't have any ideas of their own so they are just blowing smoke to confuse the issues.
Marilyn Monroe
Mary Jo Kopechne
Chandra Levy
Juanita Broaddrick
Paula Jones
Gennifer Flowers
Monica Lewinsky
sorry hit the wrong reply!
"Republicans need to turn up the heat and remind voters why Dimms are hiding from talking about what's really at stake in this election."
what the lib/dems always think is at stake usually surrounds a sex or some other type of scandal....when a party has no core beliefs or values...it is all they got!
the lib/dem platform:
1. raise taxes
2. impeach Bush
3. cut & run
anything else the lib/dems utter is just shi-ite!!!
Republicans need to be paragons of virtue, pure and faultless as Jesus Himself.
Democrats, welllllll, what a person does in their private lives doesn't affect how they do their job in public office, we're all human, you (non-democraps) need to be forgiving, yada, yada, yada, ad nauseum.
I'm glad you posted this!
The thing is...was he really under age....I have heard the kid was 18..then he was 16....
And now..they want Hasterts head on a plate...for what? He knew less than the News media and the Dems who sat on the story til it could do the most damage.
This Foley guy is a scum bag..but he is gone. It makes me sick to hear the Dems talk like they are the picture of purity.
It's worse than that.
These same Democrats are in favor of homosexuals being allowed to marry other homosexuals. If Mr. Foley had proposed marriage to this young man, these selfsame Democrats would be lined up for blocks to attend a wedding ceremony for these two.
The Democrats are morally degenerate, and are acting with utter hypocrisy.
Immediately after assuming the Presidency in January of 1993, Clinton issued an executive order which would allow open gays and lesbians to serve in the U. S. military.
This met with immediate and massive public opposition nationally, including that from all the major veterans' organizations.
It would have effectively destroyed the U. S. armed forces.
A crucial part of combat readiness is respecting and having reliance upon one's fellow soldiers. If a person is viewed as engaging in unnatural acts, even off-duty, the perception of that holds over to duty-hours and affects - critically in wartime - the combat unit.
It is unrealistic to expect military personnel to clinically separate a fellow soldier's personal life from the life as a member of the close-proximity fighting unit.
The contention that the homosexual issue in the military is like former racial and gender barriers is false: the essence of the question is not of race or gender but of behavior - and behavior certain to cause tension, hostility and discipline problems.
But Clinton and the Clintonites - most of whom have not given one day of national service in their lives - plowed ahead. This of course would have directly affected 17 and 18 year old recruits - who would have had to contend with someone making a move on them.
The massive opposition to Clinton's action soon resulted in a mandate against lifting the ban from a bipartisan group of moderate and conservative U. S. Senators and members of Congress.
Clinton then tried an end-run. On Sept. 28, 1993, Rep. Marty Meehan (Mass.) brought up for a vote in Congress (Democrats had control at this time) an Administration-approved amendment which would override the Congressional mandate and permit Clinton to lift the ban.
The amendment (Roll Call Vote #460) went down to defeat 264-169. (It is instructive to view the names of the 169 Congressmen who voted for it (i.e., for open gays in the military), including from Ohio: Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown.)
Following this, a military panel (not Clinton) put forth the suggested "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, which was then adopted by majority vote in the Congress.
So Clinton and his fellow Democrats were not reluctant to put young people - some younger than the page who was propositioned at 18 by Foley - in a direct situation where moves could be made on them.
And, incidentally, destroying the Armed Forces of the United States.
The truth is that many gays and lesbians serve honorably, discreetly, and with distinction in our armed forces - and they do not want in any way to be singled out nor to be in a situation which condones, and thereby encourages, open and flagrant homosexuality.
I served in the military in the 1950's and there was then, exactly as you describe now, those who were gay or on the border. Everyone was aware of this, simply laughed about it, and did not make an issue of it.
In fact that was generally the situation in the whole U. S. (civilian) society at that time.
My son says he doesn't care as long as they leave him alone to do his job. He was so excited when he left for the ME on Tuesday. I tried to be brave but I lost it big time. It will take me a couple of days to rehydrate.
Godspeed to your son, may he return safely.
Pray for all our troops and our country.
There are 2 issues here. First were the "creepy" overly friendly but not sexual e-mails. They were sent to a 16 yr old page. The parents found out about them and asked that they stop. This is what Hastert was made aware of - and HE asked Foley to stop as well.
Then you have the disgusting Instant Messages (IM's are like a telephone conversation, only it's typed, not spoken). This was going on between Foley and an 18 yr old former page. It is not out of the realm of possibility that this 18 yr old and some buddies were simply goading Foley into making a fool of himself either for a few laughs, or perhaps worse, because there was an opportunity to cause political damage in doing so.
Therein lies the problem. The difference between mentoring and "grooming" can be a very fine line. Were Foley's emails to the younger page part of the "grooming" process? For all we know it probably was. From what I understand, sexual predators spend a long time preparing their targets - they don't just rush in - they do things to build up the trust of the child and the parents. That's why often times people are so surprised when they learn that "that nice guy" who loves kids so much is really abusing them.
Godspeed to your son and fellow sailors. You and your family can be proud indeed. And all of us thankful for these wonderful men and women who give service for our national security and for free persons everwhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.