By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 09:38 PM
 Sigh. I think we need to keep Foley in perspective for the moment. As great as it is to watch the right collapse, we have to remember that we do indeed have wars out there. Case in point, Afghanistan. That was the origin of the War on Terror, and it’s slipping through our fingers.
In fact, after several years of relative calm, the Taliban and al-Qaida have staged a dramatic comeback, adopting the insurgent tactics that have been perfected with deadly efficiency in Iraq. More than 70 suicide bombings have killed scores of Afghan civilians this year, a 400 percent jump over 2005. Roadside bombs have more than doubled.
NATO military officials claim at least 40 percent of the attacks are launched from Taliban camps across the border in Pakistan, where both the Taliban and al-Qaida live, train and operate with apparent impunity.
And yet we won’t do a thing because Pakistan is a “sovereign nation”. There’s that old west tough as nails “fight ‘em there before they come here” attitude. The full article needs to be read, but I’ll give you one more teeny piece of it.
The Afghan government continues to struggle to establish its credibility and spread its authority beyond Kabul. At the same time the U.S. recently cut developmental aid to Afghanistan by 30 percent and less than half of the $15 billion promised in international aid has been delivered.
Are you mad yet? Still believe that Bush is tough on terror?
[tags]terrorism, al qaeda, war, afghanistan[/tags]
By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 09:03 PM
 I’m pretty sure this doesn’t need said explicitly, but hey. According to the military, roadside bombings are at an “all time high” this week. Including this:
At least 14 people were killed and 75 wounded in a car bomb attack on the convoy of Iraq’s industry minister on Wednesday, Interior Ministry sources said.
Minister Fawzi al-Hariri, a Kurd, was not in the convoy when it was attacked in central Baghdad, but two of his bodyguards were among those killed, said Industry Ministry spokeswoman Dhuha Mohammed.
Soldier casualties are also back up:
Insurgents shot dead two U.S. soldiers on Tuesday, the U.S. military said on Wednesday. One was killed in Baghdad and the other near the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. The deaths brought to 17 the number of U.S. soldiers killed since Saturday.
Yep, just another day in our brand-new democracy. Stay the course, people, otherwise things might start to turn ugly.
By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 06:33 PM
 Ridiculous New Item of the Day. A guy gets arrested for calling the Iraq War “reprehensible”.
While walking his 11-year-old son to a piano lesson, Howards saw Cheney shaking hands and posing for photos. He walked over and told Cheney, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.”
Howards said he walked on, not wanting to cause a disturbance with so many Secret Service agents around.
About 10 minutes later, Howards and his 8-year-old son were walking back through the square when Reichle allegedly walked up to Howards and asked him whether he had assaulted the vice president.
“He came out of the shadows,” Howards said. “He didn’t accuse me but asked me if I had assaulted Cheney. I said no, he grabbed me and handcuffed me behind my back in front of my son. As he led me away, I told him I can’t abandon my son. He said he’d call social services.”
Howards said Reichle told him he was being charged with the felony crime of assaulting the vice president. An Eagle County sheriff’s deputy drove him to jail, where Howards’ wife bonded him out three hours later.
I don’t really have anything to add to this one. It’s ridiculous enough on its own.
By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 05:08 PM
 Okay, now we’ve moved beyond simple “I saw some emails” territory and into Explicit Warning Land. The ousted Kirk Fordham apparently is keen on taking everyone down with him.
“The fact is even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate behavior,” Fordham said.
…
“Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these House leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005,” Fordham said.
Hoo boy.
Now, the big thing to me is that their defense is “well the emails weren’t that bad,” which isn’t entirely false. But the bigger problem is that while the emails, by themselves, weren’t disgustingly sexual, they were CLEARLY a problem. They were bad enough to start this entire investigation, after all the initial ABC article only had said emails. Everyone who read them saw the problem and knew something had to be done.
Hastert and the boys, they would have us believe, saw them and didn’t think they were bad enough to truly pursue. So either it’s a cover-up or their idiots. I’d like to opt for the latter, truthfully.
[tags]mark foley, foley, scandals, republicans, congress[/tags]
By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 02:25 PM
 I knew it. There has been a lot of debate, I saw it on MSNBC now with Pat Buchanan saying that “hey, the kid was 16, so it’s not a crime,” and I admit to having thought the same.
Well guess what? That may be wrong. According to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which was passed this year, the following is a crime:
(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF “SPECIFIED OFFENSE
AGAINST A MINOR” TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDA-
TORS.–The term “specified offense against a minor” means
an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving kidnapping.
(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving false imprisonment.
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
(D) Use in a sexual performance.
(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of
title 18, United States Code.
(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child
pornography.
(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the
use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense
against a minor.
Okay, so any kind of soliciation of a minor is an offense here. Well guess what? Lower down…
(14) MINOR.–The term “minor” means an individual who
has not attained the age of 18 years.
Now, there is a necessary clarification here. This was introduced in January and passed in July. If Foley didn’t do anything recently, then they may be in the clear. Now given that this was ongoing from 2001, I would say it’s unlikely that it suddenly stopped. If a SINGLE instance, one IM or one email, is discovered and is dated after July 27th, Foley is in even bigger trouble.
However, there’s a nuance. This also means that there was a law going through Congress this year that was criminalizing something that they knew was going on currently within their ranks. That’s particularly troubling.
More updates to come as I find them. I’m still combing through the laws.
UPDATE: As I just saw on MSNBC, pages were warned about Foley as early as 1995. This casts a shadow on whether or not the man had stopped his little habits now in 2006, though the possibility still exists that he managed to stop himself simply for the passage of the law.
However, that still means that the GOP leadership knew of a guy who was a potential felon (unless I can dig through older laws and find something that would make him an ACTUAL felon), and left him in charge of protecting kids from just this mess. It’s giving me a headache, so I think I’m going to hit the gym before I get a nosebleed or something.
By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 02:11 PM
 The man who worked for Tom Reynolds (R-NY), as his chief of staff no less, has resigned, according to MSNBC. Fordham, if you’ll recall, was the man who famously tried to get ABC to pull the story on Mark Foley, and repeatedly changed his reason why. Not to mention he gave “advice” to Foley all through the development of the scandal.
But according to ABC, the famous Brian Ross blotter that broke the story initially, the man didn’t resign. Rather, he was forced out.
Capitol Hill sources say Fordham’s firing is being demanded by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, whose job is on the line because of his handling of the page scandal.
Hastert’s trying to cover his ass and look like he’s on top of things. It’s starting to look like a domino effect, two down and who knows how many more to go.
By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 01:26 PM
 A few people have sent me the following image from the O’Reilly Factor, I believe broadcasted last night:
Okay, that’s a little confusing, but it’s not the end of the story. Apparently the Associated Press made the same damn error:
[Dobson] touched on the uproar over former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, D-Florida, who resigned Friday in a scandal over electronic messages he sent to former teenage male congressional pages.
Apparently it’s since been fixed, but come on. Have we ever seen this happen before like this? Two major news sources suddenly got Foley’s party wrong. Whoops. See that’s that damn liberal media. They always assume the perverts are Democrats.
By Hanlon, on October 4th, 2006 at 01:02 PM
![]() Well, I suppose I should clarify: he agrees with ME. See, here’s what Rush said recently:
I think there’s two things we can do in Iraq. Let me run them by you and see what you think. The first thing is that we pull back out of Baghdad, and we position along the Syrian, Jordan and Iranian borders, and we say to the Iraqis:
“We’re going to stop anybody coming across these borders. No more help from Iran. No more from Syria. No more from Jordan. Nobody’s getting into this country. If we have to, we’ll go 20 miles inland in each of these countries to make sure nobody gets through, but this is on you. We will make sure nobody else gets in. Now, you go in there (the Iraqis) and you clear out Baghdad. You do it once and for all, and then we’re out.”
H/t Crooks and Liars for that one. Now let’s contrast that with what I said back in March of this year.
So you know what? I think I’m going to throw down the gauntlet right here. I know what we need to do. We need to set two more dates. Date one will be in around six to nine months when we pull half of our troops out of Iraq. At this point we keep most of the troops in Baghdad and littering the borders just to keep an eye on things and let the Iraqi forces to the most work. The second date is in twelve to sixteen months when we pull out entirely.
They sound pretty similar, no? Wait, there’s more. Here’s Rush yesterday:
We’re trying to build a democracy; these people are going to have to learn to defend it; they can only do that by failing and dusting themselves off.
Me back in March:
A kid won’t learn to ride a bike if you never let go of the frame. Iraq’s a kid on a new bike now, and unless we let them fall and get ripped up some, they’re never going to ride on their own. Them’s the facts.
Hot damn, are you reading there, Rush? Glad to have you aboard. I know it took a little while for you to come around, but that’s understandable. Either the painkillers are slowing your thought process or the viagra’s keeping the blood out of your brain. It’s cool.
[tags]rush limbaugh, media, iraq, blogging[/tags]
|
|
|
