I get this picture of Congressman Mark Foley in a Red Pinstriped suit with Italian black leather boots typing at his keyboard, "Do I make you horny? ... Yeah baby, yeah!" Only eight years ago, this Pedophilic version of Austin Powers was voting "Yea" on the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton, something that involved consensual sex between two adults which congress had no business investigating in the first place.
Perhaps now we see why they did. Republican Congress People like the now disgraced Mark Foley are being exposed as some of the most extreme closet perverts in the country. They probably ogled the Paula Jones and Lewinsky testimony and details like a pimply faced teenage boy who just got his hands on his first porno mag. Let's not forget another former Republican congressman who was all up in arms about Clinton's transgressions, Bob Livingston, who was speaker elect at the time and was forced to resign when it was revealed that he too was engaged in an adulterous affair. At the time, Hustler's Larry Flint explained that he had hired private investigators and he had evidence of adultery or other more reprehensible sexual conduct by several dozen additional sitting Republican Congress People or Senators. It was none other than President Clinton who requested that Flint not go ahead with outing the rest of them. Yes, Clinton, who according to Right Wing Pundits as well as Free Republic and other bastions of Right Wing Thought, is a mortal enemy who lives only to destroy and attack Republicans and would take any opportunity to do so. How soon they forget. I think it is time for Larry Flint to name names and provide evidence, because it is high time to reveal the full extent of GOP hypocrisy and show what little the idea of good moral values really means to the Republican Party. We also need to see exactly who was aware of the Foley emails before they were made public. Allegations exist that one or more members of the House Republican Leadership, including Dennis Hastert, knew of these emails several months ago but did nothing about it. This needs a complete and independent investigation.
To sum up, adultery, pedophilia and other perverted acts and cover-ups of same are OK as far as Republicans are concerned, provided a Republican is doing the deed. If it is suspected that a Democrat is doing any of these, including consensual sex between non-married adults, we must investigate and if possible, put the object of the investigation under oath to see if we can get them to lie and thus be subject to perjury and obstruction of justice charges. As a matter of fact, I am sure that House Republicans would like to carefully investigate consensual sex between married adults, to include film and soundtrack, just to make sure the married couple isn't doing anything bad or wrong, of course. Please provide enough copies (on DVD and preferably in Wide Angle High Def) so that all of the House GOP Caucus can separately but thoroughly investigate each individual act.
Condoleeza Rice and the Never Imparted Terror Information and Warnings
Secretary Condoleeza Rice has turned out to be one of the worst cabinet members of a Presidential administration in the history of this country. She has skyrocketed ahead of Donald Rumsfeld in this category, not an easy feat to accomplish at all. Repeatedly warned of the threat from Al Qaeda by the Clinton transition team and CIA Director George Tenet among others, she ignored all such warnings and did nothing to stop Al Qaeda in the critical 8 1/2 months between Bush's swearing in and the September 11 attacks. If you read through the posts regarding Democrats and the War on Terror on websites like Free Republic and other Right Wing blogs, you will see how they believe we Democrats can not be trusted to do enough to fight the war on terror. The truth is now becoming clear that it was the GOP who completely dropped the ball and allowed 9/11 to happen. It is the GOP who cannot be trusted to do the right things to protect the country.
Getting back to Secretary Rice, to put her failings into perspective, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the senior Navy and Army commanders at Pearl Harbor during and leading up to the Japanese attacks on December 7th 1941. They DID things to prepare against different sorts of perceived Japanese threats, particularly sabotage. Both were fired/relieved from duty, stripped of rank, forced to leave the armed forces as a result of a perception of their not doing ENOUGH or the CORRECT things to protect against the December 7th attacks (Note: Please see comments below for previous text of this sentence as well as a discussion of Kimmel and Short's role). When talking about Condi Rice who was the President's National Security Advisor during Bush's first term, we're talking about doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect against the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda that produced 9/11 even when repeatedly warned of the threat from Al Qaeda. Even when Rice was warned one month before 9/11 that the terrorists might use Airplanes as weapons. Where are the consequences for Condi? Where are the consequences for the rest of the Bush administration to include Bush himself?
What is Rice's reaction? She says she doesn't remember any of these warnings about Al-Qaeda and that it is incomprehensible that it happened and she doesn't remember. Here are the problems for Condi. First, the 9/11 commission investigated and verified that the Clinton transition team provided Rice and the Bush administration stern warnings about the threat from Al-Qaeda. Second, the 9/11 commission and the congressional inquiry also forced Condi to read from a memo sent to her on August 2001 warning her about the threat that Al-Qaeda might use airplanes as weapons. Third, Bob Woodward uncovered evidence about, and former CIA Director George Tenet admitted to the meeting he and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black had with Rice in July of 2001 where they tried to hammer home the threat from Al-Qaeda. Three separate instances with paper trails that then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was warned about Al Qaeda and their methods. Where are the consequences?
The GOP has wallowed in incompetence, pedophilia, hypocrisy and hubris for the better part of the last eight years. Where are the consequences?
Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.
Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of the 500+ liberal pundits who, each month, are published in what has become one of the top five Liberal/progressive media sites in the US.
Neither Admiral Kimmel, nor General Short was ever prosecute
Your article incorrectly states that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were prosecuted. Neither Admiral Kimmel, nor General Short was ever prosecuted; however, they were scapegoated for the failure of others. Furthermore only one of the ten official Pearl Harbor investigations found them "derelict in their duty," the Roberts Commission.
The Roberts Commission convened 11 days after the Pearl Harbor attack, deliberated for 36 days, and published its entire report 47 days after the attack. The Roberts Commission found that the Pearl Harbor commanders, Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, were "solely responsible for the success of the Japanese attack," and "derelict in their duty." It further found, beyond its charter, that President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Hull, Secretary of War Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Knox, Chief of Staff of the Army Marshall, and Chief of Naval Operations Stark, all in Washington, did a good job.
In 1973, former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet, Adm. J.O. Richardson, Kimmel's predecessor, said "that the Report of the Roberts Commission was the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office." Adm. Richardson was only able to say that because in February 1944 Capt. Laurance Safford blew the whistle to Adm. Kimmel about America's success decrypting Japanese codes prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. The decrypted codes gave indications of the place of the Pearl Harbor attack, the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, the reason for the Pearl Harbor attack, and the deceit plan to cover the Pearl Harbor attack. Kimmel and Short received none of this information even though it was available in Washington, Manila and London. After learning about this, Adm. Kimmel initiated the next eight Pearl Harbor inquiries, and not surprisingly, the only one that accorded him the opportunity to defend himself -- the Naval Court of Inquiry -- exonerated him.
Congress passed a law in 2000 recommending that this administration advance Kimmel and Short on the retired list. To date, the administration has not done so, and refuses to release requested information explaining why.
Former Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke responding to a specific request from then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney famously wrote to him in 1991 that, "It is my judgment that you should approve this posthumous promotion [of Rear Admiral Kimmel to admiral] and recommend it to the President. . . .not because of the importance to. . .the Kimmel family but because of the importance to the Navy as an institution.”
Regards,
Tom Kimmel
PS--Excerpted in pertinent part from your article:
"Getting back to Secretary Rice, to put her failings into perspective, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the senior Navy and Army commanders at Pearl Harbor during and leading up to the Japanese attacks on December 7th 1941. They DID things to prepare against different sorts of perceived Japanese threats, particularly sabotage. Both were fired/relieved from duty, stripped of rank, forced to leave the armed forces and prosecuted and found guilty of dereliction of duty as a result of not doing ENOUGH or the CORRECT things to protect against the December 7th attacks. When talking about Condi Rice who was the President's National Security Advisor during Bush's first term, we're talking about doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect against the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda that produced 9/11 even when repeatedly warned of the threat from Al Qaeda. Even when Rice was warned one month before 9/11 that the terrorists might use Airplanes as weapons. Where are the consequences for Condi? Where are the consequences for the rest of the Bush administration to include Bush himself?"
by
TOM KIMMEL (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 5:17:51 AM
I appreciate your providing me the correct information and I will include that as a correction in a future article. I used this information as a source, FYI, in case you want to write to them as well---> http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryKimmelShort.html
I agree that they were unfairly scapegoated and did not intend my article to bring additional discredit to either man, merely to show the inequity of treatment between the two of them, who in my opinion did do everything they felt could be done, and Rice who had a fair amount of warning and did nothing. I have to believe that if your ancestor had equivalent information in his circumstance to what Rice had in hers; we would be celebrating a positive outcome, not lamenting the horror of Dec 7.
I will write to the leaders of the congressional Democratic Caucus and ask them to approve the retirement advancement you specified and to initiate action for a joint statement that completely exonorates both men and apologized to them and their families. I am not sure what influence I have but whatever it is, you shall have it.
Take care,
Steve
by
Steven Leser (194 articles, 39 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1302 comments)
on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 at 6:54:19 AM
